R.L. Anand, J, - (1.) LT . Col. Manbir Singh Chaudhary, who retired from the Army service, has filed the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued against the respondents directing them to release him the benefits of pension, gratuity, provident fund and army gratuity insurance fund etc.
(2.) THE case set up by the petitioner is that he was commissioned in the Army on 11.6.1977. On 31.12.1996 he made a request for premature retirement on compassionate grounds. The same was recommended by the Commanding Officer on 1.1.1997. On 27.1.1997 the Army Headquarters directed him to obtain confirmation certificate from CDA, Pune whether he has completed pensionable service. On 9.4.1997 CDA, Pune issued a certificate to the petitioner that he will complete pensionable service of 20 years on 10.7.1997. His case was sent to the Army Headquarters with complete record to take decision for premature retirement on 15.4.1997 and on 14.7.1997 he was allowed premature retirement and was directed to relinquish the charge as early as possible but not later than 11.10.1997 and on this date he was relieved from service. The retiral benefits were sent to the bank but the same were stopped on 21.10.1997. Further, the case of the petitioner is that he had completed 20 years service in the Army and he applied for premature retirement being a superseded officer as well as on the ground of extreme hardship because of the illness of his father in the family. With open eyes the respondent -authorities had allowed the petitioner to proceed for premature retirement. So much so, at one point of time, CDA, Pune issued a certificate that the petitioner will complete 20 years of service on 10.6.1997 as required, therefore, now it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to say that the petitioner had not completed 20 years of services as required under the law. It is also the case of the petitioner that he made several representations to the respondents for the release of pensionary benefits, but to no effect. Hence this writ petition. Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents, who filed the reply and denied the allegations. The stand of the respondents is depicted in para No. 14 of the written statement, which is reproduced as follows: - "That the contents of this para are wrong and denied. It is respectfully submitted here that as per the details indicated by him, the officer had completed the obligatory period of service on account of study leave on 6.6.97. Accordingly keeping in view, the recommendations of AHQ, premature retirement of the officer was approved duly considering the fact that the officer had been superseded twice for promotion. Subsequently in accordance with the orders issued by the Army Hqs the officer was SOS from the Army on 11.10.97. However, it was revealed later that the information supplied by the officer regarding period of study leave was incorrect and the officer was under obligation to serve the Army upto 6.6.98 and not 6.6.97. After considering the representation of the officer dated 27.10.97, the case of the officer was taken up with the Army HQs and it was decided to agree to officer's request to refund the proportionate cost of study leave including pay and allowances. It was intimated by the Army HQs that in either case, i.e. whether the officer is made to refund the proportionate cost or the full cost of study leave, the officer will not be eligible for grant of pension as after the refund of the cost of study leave (either proportionate or full) the relevant period will not qualify towards pensionable service, leaving the officer's pensionable service short of minimum 20 years."
(3.) SOME documents were also filed by the respective parties and I will deal with those documents in the subsequent portion of this judgment.;