T.S.DAS Vs UNION OF INDIA
Bench: T.S. THAKUR,A.M. KHANWILKAR,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
Case number: C.A. No.-002147-002147 / 2011
Diary number: 15588 / 2010
Advocates: RAMESHWAR PRASAD GOYAL Vs
ANIL KATIYAR
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 1
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2147 of 2011
T.S. Das and Ors. …..Appellants
Vs.
Union of India and Anr. ……Respondents
With
Civil Appeal No.8566 of 2014
J U D G M E N T
A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.
These appeals emanate from the divergent relief claimed by
the original applicants before the Armed Forces Tribunal
(Appellants in Civil Appeal No. 2147 of 2011 and Respondents in
Civil Appeal No. 8566 of 2014), which, however, involve overlapping
points for consideration. Hence, we deem it apposite to dispose of
both these appeals analogously, by this common judgment.
Page 2
2
2. Civil Appeal No. 2147 of 2011 arises from an order passed by
the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in Original
Application No. 182 of 2009 dated 4th February, 2010. The Tribunal
has rejected the claim of the applicants therein for grant of a
“Special Pension”. In Civil Appeal No. 8566 of 2014 the decision of
the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chennai, in O.A. No.83
of 2013 dated 22nd April, 2013, is challenged by the Union of India.
In that case, the Tribunal acceded to the claim of the applicants
therein for grant of a “Reservist Pension”.
3. Admittedly, the applicants before the Tribunal in both cases
were appointed as Sailors in the Indian Navy before 1973. The
appointment letter noted that the concerned applicant was engaged
as a Sailor for 10 years active service and 10 years on Fleet Reserve
Services thereafter, if required. The applicants were continued for a
brief period beyond the initial term of 10 years in active
service/engagement and discharged without drafting them to Fleet
Reserve Services. Thus, each applicant was discharged by the
Indian Navy after July, 1976, on completion of their active service
and was paid gratuity. As the Tribunal granted relief to similarly
Page 3
3
placed persons by directing the Authorities to grant Reservist
Pension/Special Pension, even these applicants moved the Tribunal
for a similar relief.
4. The 38 applicants in O.A.No.182/2009 (appellants in
C.A.No.2147/2011) had initially approached the High Court of
Delhi by way of a Civil Writ Petition No.4805/2008, to issue
direction to the competent Authority to grant special pension to
them under Regulation 95 of the Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964
(hereinafter referred to as “Pension” Regulations). The High Court
vide order dated July 8, 2008 directed the competent Authority to
examine the claim of the said applicants for grant of a special
pension. The competent Authority after examining the matter
rejected the claim of the said applicants vide a speaking order dated
30th September 2008. The competent Authority held that the said
applicants were discharged from service after completion of their
initial engagement and were not drafted to the Fleet Reserve, as
they were not required. That fact was mentioned in the discharge
slips issued to them. The competent Authority also held that
Regulation 95 of the Pension Regulations was inapplicable to the
Page 4
4
said applicants as they were not discharged as a measure of
reducing the strength of the establishment of the Indian Navy or of
any re-organization. Instead, they were discharged after completion
of engagement period in terms of Section 16 of the Navy Act, 1957.
The applicants then approached the Armed Forces Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi by way of O.A. No. 182/2009 which,
however, was dismissed on 4th February 2010. The Tribunal held
that the applicants were discharged from service after completion of
10 years period of engagement. They had no right to be drafted on
the Fleet Reserve. Reliance placed by the applicants on Regulation
269 of the Navy Ceremonial, Conditions of Service and
Miscellaneous Regulations, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the
“Conditions of Service Regulations”), was negatived by the Tribunal
on the finding that the said provision is only an enabling provision
and vests discretion in the Authority to draft the concerned Sailor
on Fleet Reserve. The Tribunal held that Regulation 95 was not
applicable to the case of the applicants who were discharged from
service after completion of 10 years of engagement. Accordingly, the
original application filed by the said applicants was dismissed being
Page 5
5
devoid of merit. Against that decision, the appellants in C.A. No.
2147/2011 have approached this Court.
5. In the companion appeal filed by the Union of India being
C.A.No. 8556/2014, the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench,
Chennai, however, has allowed the original application filed by the
three applicants. The Tribunal directed the competent Authority to
grant Reservist Pension to the said applicants payable from three
years prior to the filing of the original application i.e. from 29 th
October 2009 and to adjust the service gratuity and the
Death-cum-Retirement-Gratuity (DCRG) already paid to those
applicants from the arrears. The Tribunal while dealing with the
claim of Reservist Pension held that on expiry of the engagement of
active service, the applicants ought to have been drafted on the
Fleet Reserve Service as per the original engagement of service.
Reliance placed by the Union of India on the other decision of the
Tribunal of Regional Bench of Kochi dealing with similar issue, has
been brushed aside by the Tribunal by invoking the principle of
equitable promissory estoppel. The Tribunal concluded that the
three applicants were entitled for grant of Reservist Pension as per
Page 6
6
Regulation 92 of the Pension Regulations. The Tribunal also
accepted the alternative prayer of the said applicants for grant of
Special Pension as specified in Regulation 95 of the Pension
Regulations on the ground that because of the Government Policy
dated 3rd July 1976 of reducing the strength of establishment or
re-organising any ships or establishments resulting in paying off,
the applicants were not drafted on the Fleet Reserve Service. The
Tribunal, further, noted that the applicants could be given only one
of the above pension and finally concluded that they were entitled
for Reservist Pension.
6. The applicants who had claimed Special Pension as per
Regulation 95 of the Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964, contended
that because of the change of Policy vide notification dated 3rd July,
1976, it entailed in discontinuation of the Fleet Reserve Service.
Thus, in terms of Clause (i) of Regulation 95, they were entitled for
a Special Pension.
7. According to the original applicants, they had signed a
contract to serve with the Navy for 10 years in active service and 10
years in Fleet Service. They were under bonafide belief that they
Page 7
7
would be allowed to complete their pensionable service i.e. 10 years
in active service and 10 years in Fleet Reserve. Even the official
document in the shape of service certificate would reinforce this
position. They submit that if they were allowed to complete the term
of service, as mentioned in the certificate of service, they would
have become entitled for Reservist Pension in terms of Regulation
92 of the Pension Regulations. In any case, on account of
re-organisation of the Naval Establishment by abolishing the
establishment of Fleet Reserve, it inevitably resulted in reduction of
the total strength of the Indian Navy w.e.f. 3rd July 1976. That was
the sole reason for not drafting the applicants to the Fleet Reserve
Service. As a result, the applicants in any case were entitled to a
Special Pension under Regulation 95 of the Pension Regulations. In
that, all the Sailors in active service during 3rd July 1976, were
discharged because of the Government Policy, who, otherwise, were
entitled to be transferred to Fleet Reserve Service, as per their initial
term of engagement. Abolition of Fleet Reserve Service in terms of
Government Policy amounts to reduction of strength of
establishment of the Indian Navy or reorganization of establishment
to that extent. Reliance is placed on the exposition in the case of
Page 8
8
D.S. Nakara & Ors. vs. Union of India1 to contend that pension
payable to a Government employee is earned by rendering long and
efficient service and, therefore, can be said to be a deferred portion
of the compensation for service rendered. That cannot be denied to
the original applicants on the basis of Government Policy dated 3rd
July 1976. Taking any other view would mean that the said policy is
made applicable retrospectively even to the case of the applicants
who were already in service with assurance that they would remain
in active service for 10 years and 10 years after in Fleet Reserve.
The Government Policy dated 3rd July 1976, if made applicable to
the applicants and similarly placed persons would result in
changing their service conditions to their detriment. That is
impermissible, as expounded in the case of BCPP Mazdoor Sangh
& Anr. vs. NTPC & Ors.2 and Union of India & Ors. vs. Asian
Food Industries3. Section 184-A of the Navy Act, 1957 forbids
1
AIR 1983 SC 130
2
AIR 2008 SC 336
3
(2006) 13 SCC 542.
Page 9
9
giving retrospective effect to a Regulation which prejudicially affects
the interests of any person. It is contended that Regulation 269 of
the Conditions of Service Regulations read with the provisions of
the Pension Regulations make it amply clear that every Sailor who
had served in the Indian Navy before or after the amendment of
Conditions of Service Regulations or coming into force of the
Government Policy w.e.f. 3rd July 1976, was entitled for a pension.
The fact that Government decided to discontinue the Fleet Reserve
Service ought not to impinge upon the salutary rights of the Sailors
in active service to get pension. The applicants have supported the
reason given by the Tribunal, that the principles of equitable
promissory estoppel would apply to the fact situation of the present
case. According to the applicants, the Government has adopted a
pedantic approach in giving narrow interpretation to the expression
“if required” occurring in Regulation 269(1). If that interpretation is
to be accepted, the Regulation would be hit by Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. In that, the Government would reserve its
right to keep the Sailors on Reserve Fleet Service, but would leave
no option to the Sailors who would be bound by the contractual
obligation as per the original service conditions to remain on Fleet
Page 10
10
Service for 10 years after completion of 10 years of active service.
The discretion provided to the Government, as per the
interpretation given to the expression “if required” would be hit by
the principle of contra proferentum, as observed in the case of
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation vs. Brojonath
Ganguly4 in view of unequal bargaining power. The Department
being a Welfare State cannot be heard to adopt such argument as
canvassed with reference to the expression “if required”. The
Government cannot be heard to deny pensionary benefits to the
Sailors who were in active service at the relevant time when the
Government Policy came into force for disbanding the Fleet Reserve
Service. It is one thing to say that the Government has discretion to
discontinue or re-organise its establishment, but that cannot be
done at the cost of the rights of the Sailors, in particular pensionary
benefits. It was argued that on conjoint reading of the provisions of
Service Conditions Regulations and the Regulations for India Fleet
Reserve, it would be amply clear that when the Sailor does not
express his unwillingness to continue after active service of 10
4
(1986) 3 SCC 156
Page 11
11
years it would follow that he has been taken on the Fleet Reserve
Service. In substance, the argument is that the applicants had an
accrued and vested right to get Reservist Pension and that cannot
be taken away much less by an amendment to the Regulations or a
Government Policy to discontinue the Fleet Reserve Service.
Reliance is placed on the decisions in Union of India vs. Asian
Food Industries5, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam vs.
Bachan Singh6 and in Sonia vs. Oriental Insurance Co.7.
Appellant No. 36 (In C.A.No.2147/2011) has additionally submitted
that he was recruited as a direct entry Sailor on 7th February, 1950
and on completion of 10 years of active service was drafted to the
Fleet Reserve for second leg of compulsory 10 years Fleet Reserve.
He was discharged from the Fleet Reserve on 30th March 1967
unilaterally by the respondents. By that time, he had completed
combined 17 years 01 month and 26 days of service. Relying on
5
(2006) 13 SCC 542
6
(2009) 14 SCC 793
7
(2007) 10 SCC 627
Page 12
12
Clause (2) of Regulation 92 of the Pension Regulations, it is
contended that he was discharged from the Reserve Fleet otherwise
than at his own request; and, therefore, was entitled to Reservist
Pension. The fact that he had not made any request for early
discharge has been admitted by the Department in its letter dated
8th May 2014 and yet he has been denied the benefit of Reservist
Pension, unlike extended to Sailors similarly situated.
8.Per contra, it is submitted on behalf of the Union of India that the
period of engagement for continuous service of Naval Person in the
Indian Navy including their terms and conditions for continuous
service in the Indian Reserve Fleet and also entitlement for grant of
Reservist Pension is governed by Regulation 268 and 269 of the
Conditions of Service Regulations and also Regulation 92 and 95 of
the Pension Regulations and Regulation 6 of the Indian Fleet
Reserve Regulations. Since the original applicants were enrolled as
Sailors prior to 3rd July 1976, on completion of 10 years of
continuous service, their service could be drafted on Fleet Reserve
Service only if required, for a further period of 10 years in the
Indian Fleet Reserve, as per Regulation 269(1). But, due to
Page 13
13
discontinuation of Fleet Reserve Service w.e.f. 3rd July 1976 the
original applicants were not and could not have been drafted to
Indian Fleet Reserve. The enrollment in the Indian Fleet Reserve is
governed by the Fleet Reserve Act of 1940. It is neither a matter of
right nor automatic. As per Regulation 6 of Indian Fleet Reserve
Regulations the entries in the service certificate relied on by the
original applicants were made at the time of enrollment only to
indicate that a Sailor will serve 10 years active service followed by
10 years Fleet Reserve, if required. Such entry cannot create any
right in favour of the Sailor to be drafted on the Indian Fleet
Reserve. Regulations adverted to by the original applicants was an
enabling provision and not the condition of contract or any promise
made to the Sailor that he will be compulsorily drafted to the Fleet
Reserve. There is no deeming provision in that behalf in any of the
Regulations governing the service conditions of the Sailors.
Majority of the Sailors opted to take discharge after completion of
10 years of active service. Those who volunteered to be drafted to
the Fleet Reserve were considered by the Department on case-to-
case basis subject to fulfilling the requisite requirements therefor.
Only such Sailors who had completed the 10 years of active service
Page 14
14
and 10 years of Fleet Reserve Service, as per the Regulation, were
entitled for minimum pension. The original applicants were not
drafted to the Fleet Reserve due to discontinuation of Fleet Reserve
w.e.f 3rd July 1976. Resultantly, none of the original applicants were
eligible for Reservist Pension. It is contended that this view has
been taken by the Armed Forced Tribunal in Case No.
T.A.492/2009 (Niranjan Chakraborty, Ex-L/TEL No.92171) decided
on 10.02.2010, in O.A.No.84/2010 (Ramachandran Pillai, Ex-SEA I,
No.88568) decided on16.05.2011, in O.A.No.42/2012 (Mangala
Prasad Choubey, Ex-LS,No.94834) decided on 19.06.2013, in
O.A.No.08/2013 (Ex Navy Direct Entry Artificer Association & Ors.)
decided on 22.01.2014, in O.A.No.02/2014 (SS Bansure, Ex-SEA
I,No.84001) decided on 18.06.2014. The decision in the case of
Niranjan Chakraborty has been affirmed by this Court in SLP (C)
No.19790/2001 decided on 13th January 2014. Hence, the issue
stood concluded against the original applicants. The decision of the
Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Chennai, which is
impugned in the present appeal, therefore, deserves to be
overturned following the dismissal of the appeal by this Court
against the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal, New Delhi in
Page 15
15
T.A. No. 492/2009 dated 10th February 2010. The principle of
equitable promissory estoppel invoked by the Tribunal in the
impugned judgment is inapplicable to the present case, keeping in
mind the express provisions in the extant Regulations regarding the
service conditions of the original applicants. The original applicants
cannot be heard to claim any right to be transferred to the Reserve
Fleet or for that matter being automatically transferred thereat. For,
unless the Sailor is drafted to the Reserve Fleet by an express order
of the Competent Authority the question of entitlement to Reservist
Pension in terms of Regulation 92 would not arise. The plea of
equitable promissory estoppel cannot be pursued as there cannot
be estoppel against law ( Union of India and Another vs. Dr. S.
Baliar Singh8; Union Public Service Commission vs. Girish
Jayanti Lal Vaghela and Others9.) Reliance is also placed on the
decision of the Constitution Bench in Roshan Lal Tandon vs.
Union of India10 which has taken the view that the terms and
8
(1998) 2 SCC 208
9
(2006) 2 SCC 482
10
Page 16
16
conditions of service of Government Servants can be unilaterally
altered by the Government and there is no vested or contractual
right of the Government servant. Further, the legal position of a
Government servant is more of a status, than of contract; and the
hallmark of status being a relationship of rights and duties imposed
by the public law and not by agreement of parties. It is further
submitted that the original applicants (respondents in C.A. No.
8556/2014) were given an option to continue in Naval Service for
extended term following the discontinuance of Reserve Service, but
all of them gave unwillingness and hence they were discharged on
completion of period of engagement. Having opted to take discharge,
those applicants in any case cannot claim relief of grant of pension
as per the relevant Rules. With regard to the scope of Regulation 95
of the Pension Regulation, it is submitted that the effect of
Government Policy manifested in the Notification dated 3rd July
1976, was not to reduce the strength of the establishment of the
Indian Navy or for that matter re-organisation of the establishment
as such. It was also not a case of paying off. In that, the
applicants were discharged on completion of their active service. For
AIR 1967 SC 1889
Page 17
17
being a case of paying off, the Sailors whilst in service were required
to be removed/ discharged because of discontinuance or closure of
the Indian Fleet Reserve. Merely because of discontinuation of Fleet
Reserve, persons affected may not become entitled to a Special
Pension. Only if such re-organization results in paying off of any
ships or any establishments, Clause (ii) of Regulation 95 would
come into play. Accordingly, it is submitted that even the relief of
grant of a Special Pension, is devoid of merit.
9.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the concerned
parties at length. It is not in dispute that the applicants before the
Tribunal were engaged as Sailors before 1973. The provisions
concerning commissions, appointment and enrolments is found in
Chapter IV of the Navy Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, of
1957”). Section 9 of the Act of 1957 provides for the eligibilities for
appointment or enrolment in the Indian Navy or Indian Naval
Reserve Forces. The terms and conditions of service of Sailors, as
mentioned in Section 11 of the Act of 1957 are such as may be
prescribed. Sub-Section (2) thereof provides for the term of a Sailor
in the Indian Navy for a period of 10 years in the first instance. That
Page 18
18
was subsequently increased to 15 years. By a further amendment
in 1987, the said term has been increased to 20 years w.e.f.
09.09.1987. Section 12 of Act of 1957 is about the validity of
enrolment as a Sailor. It postulates that the incumbent shall be
deemed to have been duly enrolled and shall not thereafter be
entitled to claim his discharge on the ground of any irregularity or
illegality or any other ground whatsoever. Chapter V of the Act 1957
deals with conditions of service of Officers and Sailors. Section 14
stipulates that Officers and Sailors shall be liable to serve in the
Indian Navy or the Indian Naval Reserve Forces, as the case may be,
until they are discharged, dismissed with disgrace, retired,
permitted to resign, or released. Section 14 to 17 which may have
some bearing on the matter in hand, read thus:
“14. Liability for service of officers and sailors.-(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section(4), officers and sailors shall be liable to serve in the Indian Navy or the Indian Naval Reserve Forces, as the case may be, until they are duly discharged, dismissed with disgrace, retired, permitted to resign, or released.
(2) No officer shall be at liberty to resign his office except with the permission of the Central Government and no sailor shall be at liberty to resign his post except with the permission of the prescribed officer.
(3) The acceptance of any resignation shall be a matter within the discretion of the Central Government or the officer concerned, as the case may be.
Page 19
19
(4) Officers retired or permitted to resign shall be liable to recall to naval service in an emergency in accordance with regulations made under this Act, and on such recall shall be liable to serve until they have been duly discharged, dismissed, dismissed with disgrace, retired, permitted to resign, or released.
15. Tenure of service of officers and sailors.-(1) Every officer and sailor shall hold office during the pleasure of the President.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the regulations made thereunder-
(a) the Central Government may dismiss or discharge or retire from the naval service any officer or sailor;
(b) the Chief of the Naval Staff or any prescribed officer may dismiss or discharge from the naval service any sailor.
16. Discharge on expiry of engagement.-Subject to the provisions of section 18, a sailor shall be entitled to be discharged at the expiration of the term of service for which he is engaged unless-
(a) such expiration occurs during active service in which case he shall be liable to continue to serve for such further period as may be required by the Chief of the Naval Staff; or
(b) he is re-enrolled in accordance with the regulations made under this Act.
17. Provisions as to discharge.-(1) A sailor entitled to be discharged under section 16 shall be discharged with all convenient speed and in any case within one month of his becoming so entitled:
Provided that where a sailor is serving overseas at the time he becomes entitled to be discharged, he shall be returned to India for the purpose of being discharged with all convenient speed, and in any case within three months of his becoming so entitled.
Provided further that where such enrolled person serving overseas does not desire to return to India, he may be discharged at the place where he is at the time.
(2) Every sailor discharged shall be entitled to be conveyed free of cost from any place he may be at the time to any place in India to
Page 20
20
which he may be at the time to any place in India to which he may desire to go.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding sub-section, an enrolled person shall remain liable to serve until he is duly discharged.
(4) Every sailor who is dismissed, discharged, retired, permitted to resign or released from service shall be furnished by the prescribed officer with a certificate in the language which is the mother tongue of such sailor and also in the English language setting forth-
(a) The authority terminating his service;
(b) the cause for such termination; and
(c) the full period of his service in the Indian Navy and the Indian Naval Reserve Forces.”
Section 15 provides for the tenure of Officers and Sailors which is
subject to the provisions of the Act and the Regulations made
thereunder. The Regulations regarding conditions of service as
framed under the Act of 1957, are the Naval Ceremonial Conditions
of Services and Miscellaneous Regulations, 1964. Regulations 268
deals with engagements including all Direct Entry Sailors.
Regulation 269 deals with continuous service. Regulation 269 as
applicable at the relevant time when the applicants were appointed
before 1973, as extracted in the judgment of the Tribunal in T.A.
No.492 of 2010, read thus:
“Regulation 269:
Page 21
21
Continuous service. (1) Old [Entrants] Boys, Artificer Apprentices and Direct Entry sailors may be enrolled for a period calculated to permit a period of 10 years’ service to be completed from the date of attaining 17 years of age or from the date of being [ranked] in the Man’s [rank] on successful completion of initial training, whichever is later, provided their services are so long required.
Continuous Service sailors of all Branched shall be liable, if required, for a further 10 years’ service in the Indian Fleet Reserve, subject to the provisions of the Regulations for the Indian Fleet Reserve.”
(emphasis supplied)
Regulation 269 as amended reads thus:
“269. Continuous Service.-[(1) Old [Entrants] Boys, Artificer Apprentices and Direct Entry sailors may be enrolled for a period calculated to permit a period of 10 years’ service to be completed from the date of attaining 17 years of age or from the date of being [ranked] in the Man’s [rank] on successful completion of initial training, whichever is later, provided their services are so long required.
Continuous Service sailors of all Branches shall be liable, if required, for a further 10 years’ service in the Indian Fleet Reserve, subject to the provisions of the Regulations for the Indian Fleet Reserve.
[(1A) New Entrants.-(a) Boys, [***] and Direct Entry sailors may be enrolled for a period calculated to permit a period of 15 years’ service to be completed from the date of enrolment or from the date of attaining the age of 17 years, whichever is later, provided their services are so long required.]
[(aa) Artificer Apprentices and Direct Entry (Diploma holders) Artificers may be enrolled for a period of 26 years to be completed from the date of enrolment or from the date of attaining the age of 17 years whichever is later, provided their services are so long required.”]
(b) All new entrants with 15 years’ or 20 years’ initial engagement, as the case may be, are to sign a declaration that they shall be liable to resign a declaration that they shall be liable to
Page 22
22
recall to active service after release upto two years in case of Non-Artificers and three years in case of Artificers”] :
Provided that during the said period they shall not be required to undergo refresher training or be entitled to any retaining fee, but when recalled they shall be entitled to normal pay and allowances:
Provided further that if recalled they shall be liable to serve for so long as their services are required:
Provided also that sailors released prematurely from service at their own request shall also be liable to active service upto the period stated above.
(1B)(a) In case of the existing sailors, their period of engagement shall be governed by sub-regulation (1), except that they shall not be transferred to Fleet Reserve.
(b) The existing Fleet Reservists shall not be required to undergo refresher training but shall be entitled to the retraining ree till they are wasted out.
(IC) Persons joining service on or after 3rd July, 1976 shall be deemed the New Entrants.]
(2) No sailor shall be re-enrolled unless he fulfills the following conditions:-
(a) Out of the three annual assessments immediately preceding re-enrolment, he must have had at least two assessments of character and efficiency not below ‘VG’ and ‘Sat’, respectively.
(b) Must be recommended by his Captain as in all respects suitable to continue in Service.
(c) Must have been declared medically fit for satisfactorily carrying out the duties required of him.”
(emphasis supplied)
Page 23
23
Other relevant Regulation dealing with conditions of service of
Sailors, is Regulation 279. It provides for discharge. The same reads
thus:
“279. Discharge “S.N.L.R.”-(1) Discharge S.N.L.R. (Service no longer required) shall not be considered as a punishment but only as the appropriate method of dispensing with the services of a man:
(a) who is surplus to requirements, (b) whose retention would be to the detriment of the
Service but who has not recently committed a specific offence for which dismissal would be an appropriate punishment in addition to any other sentence awarded.
(c) On whom an adverse report has been forwarded in the post-enrolment verification report.
(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-regulation (1), if the retention of any sailor is considered undesirable on grounds of conduct or character, a report, accompanied by his Service Documents, shall be forwarded to the Administrative Authority, with a recommendation that the man be discharged ‘Service No Longer Required’.
(3) In all cases of recommendations for discharge of sailors as ‘Service No Longer Required’ except those who are to be discharged as being surplus to requirements, Captains shall establish clearly the fact that the sailor recommended for discharge has been given suitable warning and opportunity to improve. Evidence to this effect shall accompany the recommendation. In exceptional cases, when in the opinion of the Captain, the retention of a sailor is clearly undesirable, a recommendation may be forwarded and discharge may be approved although the sailor has not previously been warned.
(4) The Administrative Authority, if satisfied that discharge ‘Service No Longer Required’ is appropriate, shall forward the application to the Chief of the Naval Staff through Captain Naval Barracks with his recommendation. It is essential. The man’s Service Documents completed up-to-date shall accompany the application for discharge.
Page 24
24
(5) Abroad, sailors recommended for discharge ‘Service No Longer Required’ shall not be sent home until the approval of the Chief of the Naval Staff for discharge has been received. If in the interim, the man is transferred to another ship, the Service document sent with the man shall be annotated to the effect that an application for his discharge has been made and a copy of the application shall accompany his papers.”
Indeed, Regulation 279 providing for discharge can be invoked
before the expiration of tenure of service.
10. Besides these Regulations, we shall now advert to the Pension
Regulations framed in exercise of powers conferred by the Act of
1957, known as the Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964. Regulation
92 deals with Reservist Pension and Gratuity which reads thus:
“92. Reservist pension and gratuity.-(1) A reservist who is not in receipt of a service pension may be granted, on completion of the prescribed naval and reserve qualifying service of ten years each, a reservist pension of rupees eleven per mensem or a gratuity of rupees nine hundred in lieu of pension.
(2) A reservist who is not in receipt of a service pension and whose qualifying service is less than the period of engagement but not less than fifteen years may, on completion of the period of engagement or on earlier discharge from the reserve otherwise than at his own request, be granted a reservist pension at rupees ten per mensem or a gratuity of rupees seven hundred and fifty in lieu of pension.
(3) Where a reservist elects to receive a gratuity in lieu of pension under this regulation, the amount of gratuity shall, in no case, be less than the service gratuity that would have accrued to him under regulation 89 based on the qualifying service in the Indian Navy, had he been discharged from the active list.
Page 25
25
Explanation.- The option The option to draw a gratuity in lieu of pension shall be exercised on discharge from the reserve, and the option once exercised shall be final; no pension or gratuity shall be paid until the option has been exercised.”
Regulation 95 deals with Special Pension and Gratuity to Sailors
which reads thus:
“95. Special pensions and gratuity to sailors-When admissible.-A special pension or gratuity may be granted at the discretion of the Central Government, to sailors who are not transferred to the reserve and are discharged in large numbers in pursuance of Government’s policy-
(i) of reducing the strength of establishment of the Indian Navy; or (ii) of re-organisation, which results in paying off of any ships or
establishments.”
Regulation 6 of Regulations of the Indian Fleet Reserve, framed
under the Indian Naval Reserve Force (Discipline) Act, 1939 reads
thus: “6. Claim to join fleet Reserve – No man can claim to
join the fleet reserve as a right.”
Re: Reservist Pension
11. We shall first deal with the question regarding entitlement to
claim Reservist Pension. Sub-Clause (1) of Regulation 92, throws
some light on this aspect. It provides that a “Reservist” who is not
in a receipt of Service Pension, be granted Reservist Pension on
Page 26
26
completion of the prescribed Naval and Reserve Service of 10 years
each. None of the applicants claim that they are entitled for Service
Pension, nor have they been so granted. The eligibility of grant for
Reservist Pension is upon completion of the prescribed Naval and
Reserve qualifying service of 10 years each. It is not in dispute that
each of the applicants completed the prescribed Naval Service of 10
years in the first instance, also known as active service or
engagement. It is also not in dispute that there is no formal order
issued by the Competent Authority to draft the services of the
concerned applicant on the Fleet Reserve Service after completion of
10 years of active service in the first instance.
12. As a matter of fact, the issue under consideration was
the subject matter before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal
Bench, New Delhi in T.A. No.492/2009. The Tribunal after
analyzing the relevant provisions observed as follows:
“9. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was not inducted for a Fleet Reserve Service. He has filed a Discharge Certificate and profile of his service on record and Service Certificate which does not show that the petitioner was engaged for a Fleet Reserve Service at all or not. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when he entered into the service at that time as per rule 10 years of regular service and 10 years of fleet reserve service and out of that five years service should be counted for the purpose of qualifying service for pension. It is true
Page 27
27
at relevant time when petitioner was inducted into service there was requirement of keeping the incumbent in fleet reserve, therefore, respondents are bound by the service conditions prevailing at that time and they must give 5 years benefit of fleet reserve service. It is true that we would have certainly acceded to the request but a difficulty arose that Regulation 269 clearly contemplates that incumbent can be kept for reserve fleet, if required. This Government policy to keep in fleet reserve was discontinued in the year 1976. The Regulation 269 clearly contemplates that incumbent can be kept in fleet reserve, if required that means this is enabling provision giving liberty to respondents to keep the incumbent in fleet reserve, it does not confer any right on the petitioner that he must be necessarily kept in fleet reserve. This is the discretion of the respondents that if they required, they keep the man in fleet reserve and if they find that they do not require the incumbent for fleet reserve, the incumbent cannot as a matter of right seek writ of mandamus, he has no statutory right to be kept in fleet reserve. The expression “if required” makes abundantly clear that discretion is with the respondents to keep the incumbent in fleet reserve or not. Since this policy has been discontinued in 1976, henceforth there is no provision to keep the incumbent in fleet reserve. Petitioner was discharged in the year 1978. He knew the provision at that time also that he is not kept in fleet reserve. Therefore, petitioner cannot get the benefit of 5 years of service out of 10 years of fleet reserve service so as to complete 15 years of qualifying service for pension.”
13. This view taken by the Tribunal was challenged before this
Court by way of SLP(Civil) No. 19790/2010 which, however, was
dismissed on 13th January 2014. The said order reads thus:
“Heard.
We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The special leave petition is dismissed.
We however make it clear that this order shall not prevent the petitioner from making an appropriate representation to the competent authority for grant of special pension in terms of the Regulation 95 of the Navy (Pension) Regulation, 1964.
Page 28
28
Mr. Mohan Jain, learned ASG submits that in case such a representation is made, the same shall be examined by the competent authority and appropriate orders passed in accordance with law. That statement is recorded.
We make it clear that we have expressed no opinion about the merits of the claim that the petitioner proposes to make for payment of special pension. The matter is left entirely to the competent authority to decide the same in accordance with law. In case the competent authority takes an adverse view of the matter, the petitioner shall have the liberty to seek redress against the same in appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. No costs.”
14. It is justly contended by the Department that after the
aforesaid decision of the Tribunal having been affirmed by this
Court, the opinion of the Tribunal in the impugned judgment to the
contrary may be treated as impliedly overruled. Nevertheless, we
may examine the correctness of the approach of the Tribunal in the
impugned judgment.
15. In absence of an express order of the Competent Authority to
take the applicants on the Fleet Reserve Service, the moot question
is: whether the applicants can be treated as deemed to be in the
Fleet Reserve Service on account of the stipulation in the
appointment letter - that on completion of 10 years of Naval Service
as a Sailor, they may have to remain on Fleet Reserve Service for
another 10 years. That condition in the appointment letter cannot
Page 29
29
be read in isolation. The governing working conditions of Sailors
must be traced to the provisions in the Act of 1957 or the
Regulations framed thereunder concerning service conditions. From
the provisions in the Act of 1957, there is nothing to indicate that
the Sailor after appointment or enrolment is “automatically” entitled
to continue in Fleet Reserve Service after completion of initial active
service period of 10 years. The provisions, however, indicate that on
completion of initial active service of 10 years or enhanced period as
per the amended provisions is entitled to take discharge in
terms of Section 16 of the Act. The applicants assert that none of
the applicants opted for discharge. That, however, does not mean
that they would or in fact have continued to be on the Fleet Reserve
Service after expiration of the term of active service as a Sailor.
There ought to have been an express order issued by the competent
Authority to draft the concerned applicant in the Fleet Reserve
Service. In absence of such an order, on completion of the term of
service of engagement, the concerned sailor would stand
discharged. Concededly, retention on the Fleet Reserve Service is
the prerogative of the employer, to be exercised on case to case
basis. In the present case, however, on account of a policy decision,
Page 30
30
the Fleet Reserve Service was discontinued in terms of notification
dated 3rd July, 1976. The said notification reads thus:
“No.AD/5374/2/76/2214/S/D (N.II), Government of India,
Ministry of Defence, New Delhi, the 3rd July, 1976.
To, The chief of the Naval Staff (with 100 spare copies)
Sub.:- CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF SAILORS.
Sir, I am directed to state that the President is pleased to approve the
following modifications in the conditions of Service of sailors:-
a) Initial Period of Engagement:- Be entrolled for 15 years. b) Educational Qualification at Entry:- Be raised to Matriculation or equivalent in the case of Direct Entry sailors of Seaman and Marine Engineering branches and Bo Entry sailors of all branches. c) Ages of Entry:- The age of entry for Boys be revised to 16-18 years and that for Direct Entry sailors to 18-20 years. d) Compulsory Age of Retirement:- Subject to the prescribed rules, the age of compulsory retirement for sailors of all ranks upto and including CPO rank will be 50 years. The compulsory retirement age of MCPO I/II will remain 55 years. e) Time Scale Promotion to Leading Rank:- Seaman First Class and equivalents will be promoted to the Leading rank on completing of 5 years service in man’s rank subject to passing the prescribed examination. The date of implementation of this provision will be promulgated by Naval Headquarters. f) Transfer to Current Fleet Reserve:- Transfer of sailors into the Fleet Reserve to be discontinued. The Existing Fleet Reservists will not be required to undergo refresher training but will be paid the retaining free till they are wasted out. g) Recall to Active Service:- (i) All new entrants with 15 years initial engagement and such of the existing sailors, who re-engage to complete time for minimum pension, to sign a declaration that they will be liable to recall to active service, after release upto two years in case of Non-Artificers and three years in case of Artificers. During this period they will not be required to undergo refresher trainings or be entitled to any retraining fee, but when recalled
Page 31
31
they will be entitled to normal pay and allowances. If recalled they would be liable to serve for so long as their services are required. (ii) Sailors released prematurely from Service at their own request will also be liable to recall to active service upto the period stated above. h) Regrouping and Remustering of sailors:- Future entrants (Both Boy and Direct Entry) in Seamen and ME Branches will be on Group ‘B’ Scale of Pay. Serving sailors in these branches including Regulating Branch, who are matriculate or equivalents will also be remustered to Group “B” scale pay with effect from 1st April, 1976. Those, who attain this qualification later, will also be remustered to Group ‘B’ scale of pay, as and when they so qualify. Remustering will invariably be effective from the first of the month in which it occurs. 2. Administrative instructions, if any, will be issued by the Naval Headquarters. 3. Appropriate Government Regulations/Orders will be amended in due course. 4. This issues with the concurrence of Ministry of Finance (Def) vide their u.o. No.452/NA/S of 1976.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(P.S. Ahluwalia) Under Secretary to the Gov. of India
16. As per this policy, the initial period of engagement was
enhanced to 15 years. At the same time the transfer of Sailors to
Fleet Reserve was discontinued. This is made amply clear in Clause
(f) of the policy. The second part of the same clause pertains to
“Existing Fleet Reservist”, who were to be paid the retaining fee till
they are wasted out.
Page 32
32
17. As noted hitherto, none of the relevant provisions even
remotely suggest that the Sailor is “automatically” transferred to the
Fleet Reserve Service. Whereas, it is expressly provided that on
expiration of the term of service of engagement the Sailor would be
placed on Fleet Reserve Service only if an express order in that
behalf is passed by the Competent Authority to draft him on the
Fleet Reserve and not otherwise. Section 16 of the Act, merely gives
an option to the Sailor to take a discharge after expiration of term of
service of engagement. It is not a deeming provision that if such
option is not exercised by the concerned Sailor, he would be treated
as having been drafted on the Fleet Reserve Service for another 10
years “automatically”.
18. Regulation 269, spells out the conditions of service. It
reinforces the position that the services of a Sailor would be
continued “so long required” or “if required”. The second part of
Clause (1) of that Regulation uses the expression “if required”, for
further 10 years service in the Indian Fleets Reserve, subject to the
provisions of the Regulations for the Indian Fleet Reserve. This view
Page 33
33
taken by the Tribunal (Principal Bench, New Delhi) in T.A. No.492
of 2009 commends to us.
19. As aforesaid, on introducing the new policy on 3rd July, 1976,
the Fleet Reserve was discontinued and instead the Sailors in
service at the relevant time were given an option to continue in
active service for a further term of 5 years. Some of the Sailors
opted to continue till completion of 15 years, who, then became
eligible for “Service Pension” having qualifying service.
20. The quintessence for grant of Reservist Pension, as per
Regulation 92, is completion of the prescribed Naval and Reserve
qualifying service of 10 years “each”. Merely upon completion of 10
years of active service as a Sailor or for that matter continued
beyond that period, but falling short of 15 years or qualifying
Reserve Service, the concerned Sailor cannot claim benefit under
Regulation 92 for grant of Reservist Pension. For, to qualify for the
Reservist Pension, he must be drafted to the Fleet Reserve Service
for a period of 10 years. In terms of Regulation 6 of the Indian Fleet
Reserve Regulations, there can be no claim to join the Fleet Reserve
Page 34
34
as a matter of right. None of the applicants were drafted to the
Fleet Reserve Service after completion of their active service. Hence,
the applicants before the Tribunal, could not have claimed the relief
of Reservist Pension. The Tribunal (Regional Bench, Chennai) in
O.A. No. 83 of 2013, however, granted that relief by invoking
principle of equitable promissory estoppel and legitimate
expectation in favour of the applicants. The Tribunal, in our
opinion, committed manifest error in overlooking the statutory
provisions in the Act of 1957 and the relevant Regulations framed
thereunder, governing the conditions of service of Sailors. The fact
that on completion of 10 years of active service, the Sailor could be
taken on the Fleet Reserve Service for a further period of 10 years
cannot be interpreted to mean that the concerned Sailor had
acquired a legal right to join the Fleet Reserve Service or had de jure
continued on Fleet Reserve Service for a further 10 years after
expiration of the initial term of active service/engagement. There is
no provision either in the Act of 1957 or the Regulations framed
thereunder as pressed into service by the applicants, to suggest
that drafting of such Sailors on Fleet Reserve Service was
“automatic” after expiration of their active service/enrolment period.
Page 35
35
Considering the above, it is not necessary to burden this judgment
with the decisions considered by the Tribunal on the principle of
equitable promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation, which
have no application to the fact situation of the present case.
21. The original applicants contend that if the Government Policy
dated 3rd July, 1976 is applied to the serving Sailors, inevitably, will
result in retrospective application thereof to their deteriment. That
is forbidden by Section 184-A of the Act. This argument does not
commend to us. In that, the effect of the Government Policy is to
disband the establishment of the Reserve Fleet Service with effect
from 3rd July, 1976. As found earlier, drafting of Sailors to the
Reserve Fleet Service was not automatic; but dependent on an
express order to be passed by the competent Authority in that
behalf on case-to-case basis. The Sailors did not have a vested or
accrued right for being placed in the Reserve Fleet Service. Hence,
no right of the Sailors in active service was affected or taken away
because of the Policy dated 3rd July, 1976. Even the argument of
the original applicants that the interpretation of expression “if
required” occurring in Regulation 269(1) bestows unequal
Page 36
36
bargaining power on the Government is devoid of merits. The
validity of Regulation 269(1) was not questioned before the Tribunal
nor any relief was claimed in that behalf. Therefore, this argument
is unavailable to the original applicants. In any case, on a conjoint
reading of the Regulations governing the Service Conditions of the
Sailors and more particularly having noticed that it is the
prerogative of the Government to place the Sailors to the Fleet
Reserve Service; and at the same time option was given to the
Sailors to opt for discharge in terms of Section 16 of the Act, we fail
to understand as to how such dispensation can be termed as
unequal bargaining power. The consequence of not placing the
concerned Sailor to the Fleet Reserve Service may result in
deprivation of Reservist Pension. However, original applicants may
be entitled to get a Special Pension under Regulation 95 of the
Pension Regulations, being a separate dispensation for such
Sailors, unless discharged by way of punishment under Regulation
279.
22. Accordingly, we hold that none of the applicants before the
Tribunal are entitled for Reservist Pension in terms of Regulation 92
Page 37
37
of the Naval (Pension) Regulations, 1964. The Tribunal has relied on
other decisions of other Benches of the same Tribunal, which for
the same reason cannot be countenanced.
Re: Special Pension
23. The next question is whether the Sailors appointed before
1973 were entitled for a Special Pension, in terms of Regulation 95
of the Pension Regulations. Indeed, this is a special provision and
carves out a category of Sailors, to whom it must apply. Discretion
is vested in the Central Government to grant Special Pension to
such Sailors, who fall within the excepted category. Two broad
excepted categories have been noted in Regulation 95. Firstly,
Sailors who have been discharged from their duties in pursuance of
the Government policy of reducing the strength of establishment of
the Indian Navy; or Secondly, of reorganization, which results in
paying off of any ships or establishment. In the present case,
Clause (i) of Regulation 95 must come into play, in the backdrop of
the policy decision taken by the Government as enunciated in the
notification dated 3rd July, 1976. On and from that date,
concededly, the Fleet Reserve Service has been discontinued. That,
Page 38
38
inevitably results in reducing the strength of the establishment of
the Fleet Reserve of the Indian Navy to that extent, after coming
into force of the said policy. None of the Sailors have been or could
be drafted to the Fleet Reserve after coming into force of the said
Policy - as that establishment did not exist anymore and the
strength of establishment of the Indian Navy stood reduced to that
extent. Indisputably, the Sailors appointed prior to 3rd July, 1976,
had the option of continuing on the Fleet Reserve Service after
expiration of their active service/empanelment period. As noted
earlier, in respect of each applicants the appointment letter
mentions the period of appointment as 10 years of initial active
service and 10 years thereafter as Fleet Reserve Service, if required.
The option to continue on the Fleet Reserve Service could not be
offered to these applicants and similarly placed Sailors, by the
Department, after expiration of their empanelment period of 10
years or less than 15 years as the case may be. It is for that
reason, such Sailors were simply discharged on expiration of their
active service/empanelment period. In other words, on account of
discontinuation of the Fleet Reserve establishment of the Indian
Navy, in terms of policy dated 3rd July, 1976 it has entailed in
Page 39
39
reducing the strength of establishment of the Indian Navy to that
extent.
24. That takes us to the case of Appellant No.36 (in C.A. No.2147
of 2011). The said appellant asserts that he was discharged from
the Fleet Reserve unilaterally by the Department. By that time, he
had completed combined 17 years 1 month and 26 days of service,
for which reason was entitled to Reservist Pension under Regulation
92(2) of the Pension Regulations. The said appellant is relying on
communication dated 8th May, 2014 in support of this contention.
Since this appellant was not in active service when the Government
Policy dated 3rd July, 1976 came into being and claims to have been
discharged from the Fleet Service on 30th March, 1967, would be
free to make representation to the competent Authority. It is for the
competent Authority to examine the factum as to whether the
discharge was unilateral and not at the request of the said
appellant and including whether he would be entitled for Reservist
Pension in terms of Regulation 92(2) of the Pension Regulations.
We may not be understood to have expressed any opinion with
Page 40
40
regard to the questions that may require consideration by the
competent Authority in that regard.
25. Thus understood, all Sailors appointed prior to 3rd July, 1976
and whose tenure of initial active service/empanelment period
expired on or after 3rd July, 1976 may be eligible for a Special
Pension under Regulation 95, subject, however, to fulfilling other
requirements. In that, they had not exercised the option to take
discharge on expiry of engagement (as per Section 16 of the Act of
1957) and yet were not and could not be drafted by the competent
Authority to the Fleet Reserve because of the policy of discontinuing
the Fleet Reserve Service w.e.f. 3rd July, 1976. The cases of such
Sailors (not limited to the original applicants before the Tribunal)
must be considered by the Competent Authority within three
months for grant of a “Special Pension” from three years prior to the
date of application made by the respective Sailor and release
payment after giving adjustment of Gratuity and
Death-cum-Retirement-Gratuity (DCRG) already paid to them from
arrears. They shall be entitled for interest @ 9% P.A. on the
arrears, till the date of payment.
Page 41
41
26. The appeals are disposed in the above terms with no order as
to costs. Application for impleadment is also disposed of.
……………………………..CJI (T.S.Thakur)
………………………………..J. (A.M.Khanwilkar)
………………………………..J. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud)
New Delhi, Dated: 27th October, 2016