Semantic Analysis by spaCy
Smt. Hasina Begum @ Khatoon Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Decided On : Dec-02-2008
Court : Orissa
Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context$shops2 = $shops['topics'];$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Smt. Hasina Begum @ Khatoon Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Opposite Parties', (int) 1 => 'the Pension Regulations' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'A.S. Naidu', (int) 1 => 'Syed Musraf Ali', (int) 2 => 'W.P.(C', (int) 3 => 'Sepoy', (int) 4 => 'Petitioner', (int) 5 => 'Said Para-132', (int) 6 => 'de novo', (int) 7 => 'Petitioner' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => '120 Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army', (int) 1 => 'Army', (int) 2 => 'Court', (int) 3 => 'Court', (int) 4 => 'Opposite Party', (int) 5 => 'Opposite Party', (int) 6 => 'the Territorial Army', (int) 7 => 'the Territorial Army', (int) 8 => 'Army Service', (int) 9 => 'Army Service', (int) 10 => 'the Government of India', (int) 11 => 'Ministry of Defence', (int) 12 => 'the Pension and Pensioners' Welfare Resolution', (int) 13 => 'Armed Forces', (int) 14 => 'the 120 Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army', (int) 15 => 'the Officiating Officer In-Charge, Records', (int) 16 => 'Army', (int) 17 => 'the Learned Counsel', (int) 18 => 'Territorial Army', (int) 19 => 'Court', (int) 20 => 'Court', (int) 21 => 'the Writ Partition', (int) 22 => 'the Government of India', (int) 23 => 'the Ministry of Defence' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '21st June, 1956', (int) 1 => '20th June, 1971', (int) 2 => '10256910', (int) 3 => 'fifteen years', (int) 4 => 'days', (int) 5 => '19th May, 1975', (int) 6 => '23rd July, 2007', (int) 7 => '20th October, 2007', (int) 8 => 'fifteen years', (int) 9 => '21st June, 1956', (int) 10 => '20th June, 1971', (int) 11 => 'fifteen years', (int) 12 => '1961', (int) 13 => 'fifteen years'', (int) 14 => 'fifteen years', (int) 15 => '1961', (int) 16 => 'fifteen years', (int) 17 => 'fifteen years', (int) 18 => '15 years', (int) 19 => '1961', (int) 20 => '15 years'', (int) 21 => '15 years'', (int) 22 => '30th October, 1987', (int) 23 => '18th March, 1987', (int) 24 => 'less than 15 years', (int) 25 => '21st June, 1956', (int) 26 => '20th June, 1971', (int) 27 => 'fifteen years', (int) 28 => '20th October, 2007', (int) 29 => '10 years', (int) 30 => '5 years', (int) 31 => '11 years', (int) 32 => '119 days', (int) 33 => '15 years'', (int) 34 => '15 years', (int) 35 => '1961).9', (int) 36 => 'a period of', (int) 37 => 'six months' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'five', (int) 1 => '3', (int) 2 => '2', (int) 3 => '2/13/87', (int) 4 => '2/3rd', (int) 5 => '375' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => 'this Writ Petition' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Bihar' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Judgment' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '536992', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Smt. Hasina Begum @ Khatoon', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Smt. Hasina Begum @ Khatoon Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act. Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2008-12-02', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The dispute in this Writ Petition is with regard to entitlement of the Petitioner to receive family pension. The Petitioner is a widow .Her husband late Syed Musraf Ali was working as a Sepoy in 120 Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army) from 21st June, 1956 till 20th June, 1971. He was assigned No. 10256910. After serving the Army for fifteen years he was disengaged. Thereafter he approached the authorities for grant of pension, but no steps were taken by the latter. His family passed their days through stringent financial difficulties. Unfortunately due to lack of food and medical care he died on 19th May, 1975 leaving behind the Petitioner as his widow and five minor children. Thereafter the Petitioner once again approached the authorities for grant of pension of her deceased husband and family pension to her. All her requests having been in vain, she had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4043 of 2007. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 23rd July, 2007. This Court had directed the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Opposite Party No. 3, to call for the service records of the husband of the Petitioner, examine the same and pass a reasoned order with regard to entitlement of the deceased Sepoy to pension and family pension to the Petitioner. In consonance with that direction, it is averred, Opposite Party No. 2 passed an order on 20th October, 2007 (Annexure-4) stating therein that neither the husband of the Petitioner nor the Petitioner was entitled to pension/family pension. The said order is assailed in this Writ Petition on the ground that the deceased husband, of the Petitioner having served in the Territorial Army for a period of fifteen years, was entitled to receive service pension and after him the Petitioner is entitled to family pension in consonance with the prevailing rules, but then the authorities acted illegally and with material irregularity in denying the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. (SIC) After receiving notice, cause has been shown by the Opposite Parties. The facts that the husband of the Petitioner had joined the Territorial Army on 21st June, 1956 and had been discharged on 20th June, 1971 are admitted. It is also admitted that he had been discharged from Army Service after serving for fifteen years. Referring to Para-132 of the Pension Regulations, 1961, it is averred that minimum fifteen years' embodied service is mandatory for earning pension. This embodied period with break in service is not counted as qualifying service for pension. According to the Opposite Parties, the deceased husband of the Petitioner had completed fifteen years of service including disembodied period and hence he had not been granted service pension on his discharge from Army Service. They have further averred that family pensions only granted to those widows whose husbands were in receipt of service pension. The deceased husband of the Petitioner having not been granted service pension, the question of family pension to the Petitioner does not arise.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. A rejoinder to the counter-affidavit has been filed by the Petitioner. Referring to the Para-132 of the Pension Regulations of 1961 it is submitted that the minimum qualifying service for earning service pension is fifteen years and not fifteen years of embodied service as stated by the Opposite Parties. Said Para-132 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">132. The minimum period of qualifying service (without weightage) actually rendered and required for earning service pension shall be 15 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In para-5 of the rejoinder affidavit it has been averred that as per Para-132 of the Pension Regulations, 1961 minimum 15 years' qualifying service is required for earning service pension and not '15 years' embodied service'. The Petitioner has referred to letter No. l(5)/87/D(Pension/Services) dated 30th October, 1987 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence in keeping with the Pension and Pensioners' Welfare Resolution No. 2/13/87-PIC dated 18th March, 1987 concerning pensionary benefits to Armed Forces personnel. The said resolution in para-8 of Part-II provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">A reservist, who is not in receipt of service pension, shall be granted on completion of the prescribed combined colour and reserve qualifying service of not less than 15 years, a reservist pension equal to 2/3rd of the lowest pension admissible to a Sepoy, but in no case less than Rs. 375 P.M.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is pertinent to mention here that no affidavit having been filed by the Opposite Parties denying the aforesaid averments made in the rejoinder of the Petitioner to their counter-affidavit, the same go non-traversed and are thus accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perusal of the pleadings and other materials reveal that the husband of the Petitioner had been enrolled in the 120 Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army, Bihar) on 21st June, 1956 and had been discharged there-from on 20th June, 1971 after completion of fifteen years of service on the ground 'service no longer required'. He had not been discharged on any medical ground nor on any allegation against him. It is also not the case of the Opposite Parties that there was any blemish in his service career. The Order Dated 20th October, 2007 (Annexure-4) passed by the Officiating Officer In-Charge, Records, reveals that the husband of the Petitioner had discharged 10 years colour and 5 years of reserve service in Army. Even, according to the Opposite Parties, he had rendered 11 years and 119 days of qualifying service. According to the Opposite Parties 15 years' qualifying service is required to earn pension. There was no averment that the service rendered by the deceased husband of the Petitioner was otherwise not satisfactory and/or he was medically unfit.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, if there was any shortfall in the qualifying service of the deceased husband of the Petitioner, it was incumbent on the Opposite Parties to allow him to continue in service until he would have been eligible to receive pension, more so when there was no allegation against him and he had a blameless service record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Thus considering that the deceased husband of the Petitioner had admittedly served for 15 years in Territorial Army, this Court feels that as a special case he ought to have been granted service pension as provided under the Pension Regulations, 1961).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. This Court, accordingly, allows the Writ Partition and directs the Opposite Parties to sanction service pension in favour of the deceased husband of the Petitioner in consonance with the decision of the Government of India in the Ministry of Defence if there is no other impediment and disburse the entire arrears of pension to the Petitioner. The said Opposite Parties shall consider de novo whether the Petitioner is entitled to family pension and, if so, to sanction and disburse the same to the Petitioner within a period of six months of communication of this Judgment.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '107(2009)CLT208; 2009(1)OLR819', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India (Uoi) and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '536992' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Smt. Hasina Begum @ Khatoon Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Opposite Parties', (int) 1 => 'the Pension Regulations' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'A.S. Naidu', (int) 1 => 'Syed Musraf Ali', (int) 2 => 'W.P.(C', (int) 3 => 'Sepoy', (int) 4 => 'Petitioner', (int) 5 => 'Said Para-132', (int) 6 => 'de novo', (int) 7 => 'Petitioner' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => '120 Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army', (int) 1 => 'Army', (int) 2 => 'Court', (int) 3 => 'Court', (int) 4 => 'Opposite Party', (int) 5 => 'Opposite Party', (int) 6 => 'the Territorial Army', (int) 7 => 'the Territorial Army', (int) 8 => 'Army Service', (int) 9 => 'Army Service', (int) 10 => 'the Government of India', (int) 11 => 'Ministry of Defence', (int) 12 => 'the Pension and Pensioners' Welfare Resolution', (int) 13 => 'Armed Forces', (int) 14 => 'the 120 Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army', (int) 15 => 'the Officiating Officer In-Charge, Records', (int) 16 => 'Army', (int) 17 => 'the Learned Counsel', (int) 18 => 'Territorial Army', (int) 19 => 'Court', (int) 20 => 'Court', (int) 21 => 'the Writ Partition', (int) 22 => 'the Government of India', (int) 23 => 'the Ministry of Defence' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '21st June, 1956', (int) 1 => '20th June, 1971', (int) 2 => '10256910', (int) 3 => 'fifteen years', (int) 4 => 'days', (int) 5 => '19th May, 1975', (int) 6 => '23rd July, 2007', (int) 7 => '20th October, 2007', (int) 8 => 'fifteen years', (int) 9 => '21st June, 1956', (int) 10 => '20th June, 1971', (int) 11 => 'fifteen years', (int) 12 => '1961', (int) 13 => 'fifteen years'', (int) 14 => 'fifteen years', (int) 15 => '1961', (int) 16 => 'fifteen years', (int) 17 => 'fifteen years', (int) 18 => '15 years', (int) 19 => '1961', (int) 20 => '15 years'', (int) 21 => '15 years'', (int) 22 => '30th October, 1987', (int) 23 => '18th March, 1987', (int) 24 => 'less than 15 years', (int) 25 => '21st June, 1956', (int) 26 => '20th June, 1971', (int) 27 => 'fifteen years', (int) 28 => '20th October, 2007', (int) 29 => '10 years', (int) 30 => '5 years', (int) 31 => '11 years', (int) 32 => '119 days', (int) 33 => '15 years'', (int) 34 => '15 years', (int) 35 => '1961).9', (int) 36 => 'a period of', (int) 37 => 'six months' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'five', (int) 1 => '3', (int) 2 => '2', (int) 3 => '2/13/87', (int) 4 => '2/3rd', (int) 5 => '375' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => 'this Writ Petition' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Bihar' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Judgment' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '536992', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Smt. Hasina Begum @ Khatoon', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Smt. Hasina Begum @ Khatoon Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act. Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2008-12-02', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The dispute in this Writ Petition is with regard to entitlement of the Petitioner to receive family pension. The Petitioner is a widow .Her husband late Syed Musraf Ali was working as a Sepoy in 120 Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army) from 21st June, 1956 till 20th June, 1971. He was assigned No. 10256910. After serving the Army for fifteen years he was disengaged. Thereafter he approached the authorities for grant of pension, but no steps were taken by the latter. His family passed their days through stringent financial difficulties. Unfortunately due to lack of food and medical care he died on 19th May, 1975 leaving behind the Petitioner as his widow and five minor children. Thereafter the Petitioner once again approached the authorities for grant of pension of her deceased husband and family pension to her. All her requests having been in vain, she had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4043 of 2007. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 23rd July, 2007. This Court had directed the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Opposite Party No. 3, to call for the service records of the husband of the Petitioner, examine the same and pass a reasoned order with regard to entitlement of the deceased Sepoy to pension and family pension to the Petitioner. In consonance with that direction, it is averred, Opposite Party No. 2 passed an order on 20th October, 2007 (Annexure-4) stating therein that neither the husband of the Petitioner nor the Petitioner was entitled to pension/family pension. The said order is assailed in this Writ Petition on the ground that the deceased husband, of the Petitioner having served in the Territorial Army for a period of fifteen years, was entitled to receive service pension and after him the Petitioner is entitled to family pension in consonance with the prevailing rules, but then the authorities acted illegally and with material irregularity in denying the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. (SIC) After receiving notice, cause has been shown by the Opposite Parties. The facts that the husband of the Petitioner had joined the Territorial Army on 21st June, 1956 and had been discharged on 20th June, 1971 are admitted. It is also admitted that he had been discharged from Army Service after serving for fifteen years. Referring to Para-132 of the Pension Regulations, 1961, it is averred that minimum fifteen years' embodied service is mandatory for earning pension. This embodied period with break in service is not counted as qualifying service for pension. According to the Opposite Parties, the deceased husband of the Petitioner had completed fifteen years of service including disembodied period and hence he had not been granted service pension on his discharge from Army Service. They have further averred that family pensions only granted to those widows whose husbands were in receipt of service pension. The deceased husband of the Petitioner having not been granted service pension, the question of family pension to the Petitioner does not arise.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. A rejoinder to the counter-affidavit has been filed by the Petitioner. Referring to the Para-132 of the Pension Regulations of 1961 it is submitted that the minimum qualifying service for earning service pension is fifteen years and not fifteen years of embodied service as stated by the Opposite Parties. Said Para-132 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">132. The minimum period of qualifying service (without weightage) actually rendered and required for earning service pension shall be 15 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In para-5 of the rejoinder affidavit it has been averred that as per Para-132 of the Pension Regulations, 1961 minimum 15 years' qualifying service is required for earning service pension and not '15 years' embodied service'. The Petitioner has referred to letter No. l(5)/87/D(Pension/Services) dated 30th October, 1987 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence in keeping with the Pension and Pensioners' Welfare Resolution No. 2/13/87-PIC dated 18th March, 1987 concerning pensionary benefits to Armed Forces personnel. The said resolution in para-8 of Part-II provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">A reservist, who is not in receipt of service pension, shall be granted on completion of the prescribed combined colour and reserve qualifying service of not less than 15 years, a reservist pension equal to 2/3rd of the lowest pension admissible to a Sepoy, but in no case less than Rs. 375 P.M.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is pertinent to mention here that no affidavit having been filed by the Opposite Parties denying the aforesaid averments made in the rejoinder of the Petitioner to their counter-affidavit, the same go non-traversed and are thus accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perusal of the pleadings and other materials reveal that the husband of the Petitioner had been enrolled in the 120 Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army, Bihar) on 21st June, 1956 and had been discharged there-from on 20th June, 1971 after completion of fifteen years of service on the ground 'service no longer required'. He had not been discharged on any medical ground nor on any allegation against him. It is also not the case of the Opposite Parties that there was any blemish in his service career. The Order Dated 20th October, 2007 (Annexure-4) passed by the Officiating Officer In-Charge, Records, reveals that the husband of the Petitioner had discharged 10 years colour and 5 years of reserve service in Army. Even, according to the Opposite Parties, he had rendered 11 years and 119 days of qualifying service. According to the Opposite Parties 15 years' qualifying service is required to earn pension. There was no averment that the service rendered by the deceased husband of the Petitioner was otherwise not satisfactory and/or he was medically unfit.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, if there was any shortfall in the qualifying service of the deceased husband of the Petitioner, it was incumbent on the Opposite Parties to allow him to continue in service until he would have been eligible to receive pension, more so when there was no allegation against him and he had a blameless service record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Thus considering that the deceased husband of the Petitioner had admittedly served for 15 years in Territorial Army, this Court feels that as a special case he ought to have been granted service pension as provided under the Pension Regulations, 1961).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. This Court, accordingly, allows the Writ Partition and directs the Opposite Parties to sanction service pension in favour of the deceased husband of the Petitioner in consonance with the decision of the Government of India in the Ministry of Defence if there is no other impediment and disburse the entire arrears of pension to the Petitioner. The said Opposite Parties shall consider de novo whether the Petitioner is entitled to family pension and, if so, to sanction and disburse the same to the Petitioner within a period of six months of communication of this Judgment.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '107(2009)CLT208; 2009(1)OLR819', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India (Uoi) and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '536992' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Smt. Hasina Begum @ Khatoon Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Opposite Parties', (int) 1 => 'the Pension Regulations' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'A.S. Naidu', (int) 1 => 'Syed Musraf Ali', (int) 2 => 'W.P.(C', (int) 3 => 'Sepoy', (int) 4 => 'Petitioner', (int) 5 => 'Said Para-132', (int) 6 => 'de novo', (int) 7 => 'Petitioner' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => '120 Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army', (int) 1 => 'Army', (int) 2 => 'Court', (int) 3 => 'Court', (int) 4 => 'Opposite Party', (int) 5 => 'Opposite Party', (int) 6 => 'the Territorial Army', (int) 7 => 'the Territorial Army', (int) 8 => 'Army Service', (int) 9 => 'Army Service', (int) 10 => 'the Government of India', (int) 11 => 'Ministry of Defence', (int) 12 => 'the Pension and Pensioners' Welfare Resolution', (int) 13 => 'Armed Forces', (int) 14 => 'the 120 Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army', (int) 15 => 'the Officiating Officer In-Charge, Records', (int) 16 => 'Army', (int) 17 => 'the Learned Counsel', (int) 18 => 'Territorial Army', (int) 19 => 'Court', (int) 20 => 'Court', (int) 21 => 'the Writ Partition', (int) 22 => 'the Government of India', (int) 23 => 'the Ministry of Defence' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '21st June, 1956', (int) 1 => '20th June, 1971', (int) 2 => '10256910', (int) 3 => 'fifteen years', (int) 4 => 'days', (int) 5 => '19th May, 1975', (int) 6 => '23rd July, 2007', (int) 7 => '20th October, 2007', (int) 8 => 'fifteen years', (int) 9 => '21st June, 1956', (int) 10 => '20th June, 1971', (int) 11 => 'fifteen years', (int) 12 => '1961', (int) 13 => 'fifteen years'', (int) 14 => 'fifteen years', (int) 15 => '1961', (int) 16 => 'fifteen years', (int) 17 => 'fifteen years', (int) 18 => '15 years', (int) 19 => '1961', (int) 20 => '15 years'', (int) 21 => '15 years'', (int) 22 => '30th October, 1987', (int) 23 => '18th March, 1987', (int) 24 => 'less than 15 years', (int) 25 => '21st June, 1956', (int) 26 => '20th June, 1971', (int) 27 => 'fifteen years', (int) 28 => '20th October, 2007', (int) 29 => '10 years', (int) 30 => '5 years', (int) 31 => '11 years', (int) 32 => '119 days', (int) 33 => '15 years'', (int) 34 => '15 years', (int) 35 => '1961).9', (int) 36 => 'a period of', (int) 37 => 'six months' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'five', (int) 1 => '3', (int) 2 => '2', (int) 3 => '2/13/87', (int) 4 => '2/3rd', (int) 5 => '375' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => 'this Writ Petition' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Bihar' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Judgment' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '536992', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Smt. Hasina Begum @ Khatoon', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Smt. Hasina Begum @ Khatoon Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act. Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2008-12-02', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The dispute in this Writ Petition is with regard to entitlement of the Petitioner to receive family pension. The Petitioner is a widow .Her husband late Syed Musraf Ali was working as a Sepoy in 120 Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army) from 21st June, 1956 till 20th June, 1971. He was assigned No. 10256910. After serving the Army for fifteen years he was disengaged. Thereafter he approached the authorities for grant of pension, but no steps were taken by the latter. His family passed their days through stringent financial difficulties. Unfortunately due to lack of food and medical care he died on 19th May, 1975 leaving behind the Petitioner as his widow and five minor children. Thereafter the Petitioner once again approached the authorities for grant of pension of her deceased husband and family pension to her. All her requests having been in vain, she had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4043 of 2007. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 23rd July, 2007. This Court had directed the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Opposite Party No. 3, to call for the service records of the husband of the Petitioner, examine the same and pass a reasoned order with regard to entitlement of the deceased Sepoy to pension and family pension to the Petitioner. In consonance with that direction, it is averred, Opposite Party No. 2 passed an order on 20th October, 2007 (Annexure-4) stating therein that neither the husband of the Petitioner nor the Petitioner was entitled to pension/family pension. The said order is assailed in this Writ Petition on the ground that the deceased husband, of the Petitioner having served in the Territorial Army for a period of fifteen years, was entitled to receive service pension and after him the Petitioner is entitled to family pension in consonance with the prevailing rules, but then the authorities acted illegally and with material irregularity in denying the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. (SIC) After receiving notice, cause has been shown by the Opposite Parties. The facts that the husband of the Petitioner had joined the Territorial Army on 21st June, 1956 and had been discharged on 20th June, 1971 are admitted. It is also admitted that he had been discharged from Army Service after serving for fifteen years. Referring to Para-132 of the Pension Regulations, 1961, it is averred that minimum fifteen years' embodied service is mandatory for earning pension. This embodied period with break in service is not counted as qualifying service for pension. According to the Opposite Parties, the deceased husband of the Petitioner had completed fifteen years of service including disembodied period and hence he had not been granted service pension on his discharge from Army Service. They have further averred that family pensions only granted to those widows whose husbands were in receipt of service pension. The deceased husband of the Petitioner having not been granted service pension, the question of family pension to the Petitioner does not arise.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. A rejoinder to the counter-affidavit has been filed by the Petitioner. Referring to the Para-132 of the Pension Regulations of 1961 it is submitted that the minimum qualifying service for earning service pension is fifteen years and not fifteen years of embodied service as stated by the Opposite Parties. Said Para-132 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">132. The minimum period of qualifying service (without weightage) actually rendered and required for earning service pension shall be 15 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In para-5 of the rejoinder affidavit it has been averred that as per Para-132 of the Pension Regulations, 1961 minimum 15 years' qualifying service is required for earning service pension and not '15 years' embodied service'. The Petitioner has referred to letter No. l(5)/87/D(Pension/Services) dated 30th October, 1987 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence in keeping with the Pension and Pensioners' Welfare Resolution No. 2/13/87-PIC dated 18th March, 1987 concerning pensionary benefits to Armed Forces personnel. The said resolution in para-8 of Part-II provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">A reservist, who is not in receipt of service pension, shall be granted on completion of the prescribed combined colour and reserve qualifying service of not less than 15 years, a reservist pension equal to 2/3rd of the lowest pension admissible to a Sepoy, but in no case less than Rs. 375 P.M.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is pertinent to mention here that no affidavit having been filed by the Opposite Parties denying the aforesaid averments made in the rejoinder of the Petitioner to their counter-affidavit, the same go non-traversed and are thus accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perusal of the pleadings and other materials reveal that the husband of the Petitioner had been enrolled in the 120 Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army, Bihar) on 21st June, 1956 and had been discharged there-from on 20th June, 1971 after completion of fifteen years of service on the ground 'service no longer required'. He had not been discharged on any medical ground nor on any allegation against him. It is also not the case of the Opposite Parties that there was any blemish in his service career. The Order Dated 20th October, 2007 (Annexure-4) passed by the Officiating Officer In-Charge, Records, reveals that the husband of the Petitioner had discharged 10 years colour and 5 years of reserve service in Army. Even, according to the Opposite Parties, he had rendered 11 years and 119 days of qualifying service. According to the Opposite Parties 15 years' qualifying service is required to earn pension. There was no averment that the service rendered by the deceased husband of the Petitioner was otherwise not satisfactory and/or he was medically unfit.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, if there was any shortfall in the qualifying service of the deceased husband of the Petitioner, it was incumbent on the Opposite Parties to allow him to continue in service until he would have been eligible to receive pension, more so when there was no allegation against him and he had a blameless service record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Thus considering that the deceased husband of the Petitioner had admittedly served for 15 years in Territorial Army, this Court feels that as a special case he ought to have been granted service pension as provided under the Pension Regulations, 1961).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. This Court, accordingly, allows the Writ Partition and directs the Opposite Parties to sanction service pension in favour of the deceased husband of the Petitioner in consonance with the decision of the Government of India in the Ministry of Defence if there is no other impediment and disburse the entire arrears of pension to the Petitioner. The said Opposite Parties shall consider de novo whether the Petitioner is entitled to family pension and, if so, to sanction and disburse the same to the Petitioner within a period of six months of communication of this Judgment.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '107(2009)CLT208; 2009(1)OLR819', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India (Uoi) and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '536992' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Smt. Hasina Begum @ Khatoon Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Opposite Parties', (int) 1 => 'the Pension Regulations' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'A.S. Naidu', (int) 1 => 'Syed Musraf Ali', (int) 2 => 'W.P.(C', (int) 3 => 'Sepoy', (int) 4 => 'Petitioner', (int) 5 => 'Said Para-132', (int) 6 => 'de novo', (int) 7 => 'Petitioner' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => '120 Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army', (int) 1 => 'Army', (int) 2 => 'Court', (int) 3 => 'Court', (int) 4 => 'Opposite Party', (int) 5 => 'Opposite Party', (int) 6 => 'the Territorial Army', (int) 7 => 'the Territorial Army', (int) 8 => 'Army Service', (int) 9 => 'Army Service', (int) 10 => 'the Government of India', (int) 11 => 'Ministry of Defence', (int) 12 => 'the Pension and Pensioners' Welfare Resolution', (int) 13 => 'Armed Forces', (int) 14 => 'the 120 Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army', (int) 15 => 'the Officiating Officer In-Charge, Records', (int) 16 => 'Army', (int) 17 => 'the Learned Counsel', (int) 18 => 'Territorial Army', (int) 19 => 'Court', (int) 20 => 'Court', (int) 21 => 'the Writ Partition', (int) 22 => 'the Government of India', (int) 23 => 'the Ministry of Defence' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '21st June, 1956', (int) 1 => '20th June, 1971', (int) 2 => '10256910', (int) 3 => 'fifteen years', (int) 4 => 'days', (int) 5 => '19th May, 1975', (int) 6 => '23rd July, 2007', (int) 7 => '20th October, 2007', (int) 8 => 'fifteen years', (int) 9 => '21st June, 1956', (int) 10 => '20th June, 1971', (int) 11 => 'fifteen years', (int) 12 => '1961', (int) 13 => 'fifteen years'', (int) 14 => 'fifteen years', (int) 15 => '1961', (int) 16 => 'fifteen years', (int) 17 => 'fifteen years', (int) 18 => '15 years', (int) 19 => '1961', (int) 20 => '15 years'', (int) 21 => '15 years'', (int) 22 => '30th October, 1987', (int) 23 => '18th March, 1987', (int) 24 => 'less than 15 years', (int) 25 => '21st June, 1956', (int) 26 => '20th June, 1971', (int) 27 => 'fifteen years', (int) 28 => '20th October, 2007', (int) 29 => '10 years', (int) 30 => '5 years', (int) 31 => '11 years', (int) 32 => '119 days', (int) 33 => '15 years'', (int) 34 => '15 years', (int) 35 => '1961).9', (int) 36 => 'a period of', (int) 37 => 'six months' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'five', (int) 1 => '3', (int) 2 => '2', (int) 3 => '2/13/87', (int) 4 => '2/3rd', (int) 5 => '375' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => 'this Writ Petition' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Bihar' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Judgment' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '536992', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Smt. Hasina Begum @ Khatoon', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Smt. Hasina Begum @ Khatoon Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act. Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2008-12-02', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The dispute in this Writ Petition is with regard to entitlement of the Petitioner to receive family pension. The Petitioner is a widow .Her husband late Syed Musraf Ali was working as a Sepoy in 120 Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army) from 21st June, 1956 till 20th June, 1971. He was assigned No. 10256910. After serving the Army for fifteen years he was disengaged. Thereafter he approached the authorities for grant of pension, but no steps were taken by the latter. His family passed their days through stringent financial difficulties. Unfortunately due to lack of food and medical care he died on 19th May, 1975 leaving behind the Petitioner as his widow and five minor children. Thereafter the Petitioner once again approached the authorities for grant of pension of her deceased husband and family pension to her. All her requests having been in vain, she had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4043 of 2007. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 23rd July, 2007. This Court had directed the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Opposite Party No. 3, to call for the service records of the husband of the Petitioner, examine the same and pass a reasoned order with regard to entitlement of the deceased Sepoy to pension and family pension to the Petitioner. In consonance with that direction, it is averred, Opposite Party No. 2 passed an order on 20th October, 2007 (Annexure-4) stating therein that neither the husband of the Petitioner nor the Petitioner was entitled to pension/family pension. The said order is assailed in this Writ Petition on the ground that the deceased husband, of the Petitioner having served in the Territorial Army for a period of fifteen years, was entitled to receive service pension and after him the Petitioner is entitled to family pension in consonance with the prevailing rules, but then the authorities acted illegally and with material irregularity in denying the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. (SIC) After receiving notice, cause has been shown by the Opposite Parties. The facts that the husband of the Petitioner had joined the Territorial Army on 21st June, 1956 and had been discharged on 20th June, 1971 are admitted. It is also admitted that he had been discharged from Army Service after serving for fifteen years. Referring to Para-132 of the Pension Regulations, 1961, it is averred that minimum fifteen years' embodied service is mandatory for earning pension. This embodied period with break in service is not counted as qualifying service for pension. According to the Opposite Parties, the deceased husband of the Petitioner had completed fifteen years of service including disembodied period and hence he had not been granted service pension on his discharge from Army Service. They have further averred that family pensions only granted to those widows whose husbands were in receipt of service pension. The deceased husband of the Petitioner having not been granted service pension, the question of family pension to the Petitioner does not arise.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. A rejoinder to the counter-affidavit has been filed by the Petitioner. Referring to the Para-132 of the Pension Regulations of 1961 it is submitted that the minimum qualifying service for earning service pension is fifteen years and not fifteen years of embodied service as stated by the Opposite Parties. Said Para-132 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">132. The minimum period of qualifying service (without weightage) actually rendered and required for earning service pension shall be 15 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In para-5 of the rejoinder affidavit it has been averred that as per Para-132 of the Pension Regulations, 1961 minimum 15 years' qualifying service is required for earning service pension and not '15 years' embodied service'. The Petitioner has referred to letter No. l(5)/87/D(Pension/Services) dated 30th October, 1987 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence in keeping with the Pension and Pensioners' Welfare Resolution No. 2/13/87-PIC dated 18th March, 1987 concerning pensionary benefits to Armed Forces personnel. The said resolution in para-8 of Part-II provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">A reservist, who is not in receipt of service pension, shall be granted on completion of the prescribed combined colour and reserve qualifying service of not less than 15 years, a reservist pension equal to 2/3rd of the lowest pension admissible to a Sepoy, but in no case less than Rs. 375 P.M.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is pertinent to mention here that no affidavit having been filed by the Opposite Parties denying the aforesaid averments made in the rejoinder of the Petitioner to their counter-affidavit, the same go non-traversed and are thus accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perusal of the pleadings and other materials reveal that the husband of the Petitioner had been enrolled in the 120 Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army, Bihar) on 21st June, 1956 and had been discharged there-from on 20th June, 1971 after completion of fifteen years of service on the ground 'service no longer required'. He had not been discharged on any medical ground nor on any allegation against him. It is also not the case of the Opposite Parties that there was any blemish in his service career. The Order Dated 20th October, 2007 (Annexure-4) passed by the Officiating Officer In-Charge, Records, reveals that the husband of the Petitioner had discharged 10 years colour and 5 years of reserve service in Army. Even, according to the Opposite Parties, he had rendered 11 years and 119 days of qualifying service. According to the Opposite Parties 15 years' qualifying service is required to earn pension. There was no averment that the service rendered by the deceased husband of the Petitioner was otherwise not satisfactory and/or he was medically unfit.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, if there was any shortfall in the qualifying service of the deceased husband of the Petitioner, it was incumbent on the Opposite Parties to allow him to continue in service until he would have been eligible to receive pension, more so when there was no allegation against him and he had a blameless service record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Thus considering that the deceased husband of the Petitioner had admittedly served for 15 years in Territorial Army, this Court feels that as a special case he ought to have been granted service pension as provided under the Pension Regulations, 1961).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. This Court, accordingly, allows the Writ Partition and directs the Opposite Parties to sanction service pension in favour of the deceased husband of the Petitioner in consonance with the decision of the Government of India in the Ministry of Defence if there is no other impediment and disburse the entire arrears of pension to the Petitioner. The said Opposite Parties shall consider de novo whether the Petitioner is entitled to family pension and, if so, to sanction and disburse the same to the Petitioner within a period of six months of communication of this Judgment.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '107(2009)CLT208; 2009(1)OLR819', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India (Uoi) and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '536992' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/' $shops2 = nullinclude - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
LAW: the Opposite Parties, the Pension Regulations
PERSON: A.S. Naidu, Syed Musraf Ali, W.P.(C, Sepoy, Petitioner, Said Para-132, de novo, Petitioner
NORP: J.1
ORG: 120 Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army, Army, Court, Court, Opposite Party, Opposite Party, the Territorial Army, the Territorial Army, Army Service, Army Service, the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, the Pension and Pensioners' Welfare Resolution, Armed Forces, the 120 Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army, the Officiating Officer In-Charge, Records, Army, the Learned Counsel, Territorial Army, Court, Court, the Writ Partition, the Government of India, the Ministry of Defence
DATE: 21st June, 1956, 20th June, 1971, 10256910, fifteen years, days, 19th May, 1975, 23rd July, 2007, 20th October, 2007, fifteen years, 21st June, 1956, 20th June, 1971, fifteen years, 1961, fifteen years', fifteen years, 1961, fifteen years, fifteen years, 15 years, 1961, 15 years', 15 years', 30th October, 1987, 18th March, 1987, less than 15 years, 21st June, 1956, 20th June, 1971, fifteen years, 20th October, 2007, 10 years, 5 years, 11 years, 119 days, 15 years', 15 years, 1961).9, a period of, six months
CARDINAL: five, 3, 2, 2/13/87, 2/3rd, 375
WORK_OF_ART: this Writ Petition
GPE: Bihar
PRODUCT: Judgment