Ministry Policy Cannot Override Supreme Court Precedents On Defence Security Corps Pension Condonation: P&H High Court

Background

Tarsem Singh was enrolled in the Indian Army on March 21, 1969. He served for 22 years and 11 months before retiring on March 31, 1991. He was also granted a pension on retirement for his Army service. Subsequently, he joined the Defence Security Corps (DSC) on November 9, 1991. He served in the DSC for 14 years before being discharged upon attaining the age of superannuation.

DSC service required 15 years of service to be eligible for a service pension. However, Tarsem Singh's service fell short by 343 days. Consequently, his application for a DSC service pension was rejected. Aggrieved, he approached the Armed Forces Tribunal. The Tribunal condoned the shortfall and allowed him to receive the pension. Challenging this decision, the Union of India filed a writ petition in the Punjab & Haryana High Court.

Arguments

The government argued that Regulation 125 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, and Regulation 44 of the 2008 Regulations limited the authority to condone service shortfalls. Both regulations permitted condonation only up to six months (1961 Rules) and 12 months (2008 Rules) respectively. Additionally, citing a Ministry of Defence notification dated June 20, 2017, they argued that the notification introduced a clause that explicitly denied condonation for a second service pension under the DSC.

To the contrary, Tarsem Singh relied on Union of India v. Surender Singh Parmar, (2015) 3 SCC 404. The case held that condonation of service shortfalls up to a year could be granted, if the DSC personnel had at least 14 years of service. Since Tarsem Singh was only short of 343 days, he argued that the condonation was valid.

Court's Reasoning

Firstly, the court affirmed that as per Surender Singh Parmar, tribunals and courts could direct the condonation of shortfalls in qualifying service. It noted that the Tribunal relied correctly on this judgment, as it allowed judicial intervention in cases where the competent authority failed to exercise discretion reasonably.

Secondly, the court addressed the Union's reliance on the Ministry of Defence's 2017 policy. It held that the regulation barring condonation for second pensions could not override settled judicial precedents. The court stated that the policy letter could not nullify the principles upheld by the Supreme Court, which had already permitted condonation for personnel with over 14 years of service.

Thus, the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the writ petition. It upheld the Tribunal's order, and granted Tarsem Singh his DSC pension.

Decided On: 14-01-2025

Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:003625-DB | Union of India and Others v. Ex-Nk Tarsem Tarsem Singh and Another

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Maheshinder Tarsem Singh Sidhu, Senior Panel Counsel

Counsel for the Respondents: None recorded

Click Here To Read/Download The Order