The Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) whereby it directed the Union Ministry of Defence to grant the benefit of a revised pension to reservist army retirees under the Pension Regulation for Army, 1961.
The AFT had directed the Union to calculate 'reservist pension' at the rate of 2/3rd of pension as applicable to the lowest grade of Sepoys as provided under the regulations.
In the earlier times, many Sepoys were enrolled in the Army (and other defence services) under the Colour / Reserve system of enrolment, where a person had to serve approximately 7 years in Colours (Physical service) and 8 years in Reserves and ultimately as per Regulation 155 of the Pension Regulations of the Indian Army, 1961 they were to be released a pension called "Reservist Pension."
Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma noted that all the present petitioners do evidently qualify the total of the relevant period of qualifiable pensionable service both on the apposite rolls of reservist as well as of colour service.
The division bench added that "the Colour/Reserve system of enrolment was regulated in many forms such as the 7+8, 6+9, 9+6, 5+10, 10+5 years etc. format, but the total of the apposite colour and reserve qualifying service but was mandatorily required to be performed for a period of 15 years rather for the reservist pension becoming endowed to the defence personnel. Therefore, all the present respondents (petitioners in the O.A.) do evidently qualify the total of the relevant period of qualifiable pensionable service both on the apposite roll(s) of reservist as well as of colour service."
The plea was filed by the Union Government challenging the order of the AFT whereby it directed to process the case of retired reservist army personnel for revision of pension.
After hearing the submissions, the Court rejected the plea taken by the Union Government that the 2/3rd protection was only available to post-1986 retiree reservist pensioners.
The Court observed that the system of reserves itself was abolished in the year 1976 and hence there was no occasion to contend that the 2/3rd protection clause was only introduced for post-1986 retirees.
It also clarified that "since the policy of One Rank One Pension (OROP), is a decision post-1976, thereupon, it does not have any effect upon the reservist pension being drawn by the respondents (Union)."
The division bench observed that "As such, the principle of One Rank One Pension, whereby there may be disallowings qua the benefits of the policy decision (supra), thus is not applicable to the present respondents, as thereby, it would be antithetical both to the policy decision (supra) besides it would cause financial prejudice to the respondents, who prior to the coming into force of the policy of One Rank One Pension, did become valid recipients of the apposite benefits of both, pensionable service rendered in colour and to the pensionable service rendered in the reservist force."
In light of the above, the plea filed by the Union government was dismissed.
Title: UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. DARSHAN SINGH BAL AND ORS.
Mr. Rohit Verma and Mr. Angel Walia, Sr. Panel Counsel for the petitioner (Union of India).
Mr. Bharat, Mr. Parveen, and Mr. Jai Singh, Advocates for the respondents (in CWP Nos. 14669, 14671, 14674, 17055, 17194, 17203, 17209, 17222, 18351, 18352 and 17217 of 2024).
Mr. Navdeep Singh and Mr. Roopam Atwal, Advocates or the respondents (in CWP Nos. 14664, 17055, 17198, 17221 and 18721 of 2024).
Mr. Anirudh Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 1 (in CWP-14667-2024).