Judgment:
Shrikant Tripathi, Member (J):
1. Counsel statement filed on behalf of the respondents is taken on record.
2. Heard Mr.Ramesh C.R for the applicant and Mr.Tojan J. Vathikulam for the respondents and perused the record.
3. The applicant, Gangadharan M.V., Ex Lance Naik No.13944082K, claims the benefit of rounding off of the disability pension in terms of the Government of India, ministry of Defence letter No.1 (2)/97/D(Pen-C) 31st January, 2001.
4. The facts relevant for the decision of the instant matter are that, the applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army on 6th of October, 1977 as Sepoy and was discharged on 1st of November 1994. After the discharge from the Army, he was re-enrolled in the Defence Security Corps on 29th March 1997 for a term of engagement of ten years with the liberty to claim further extension of five years or till attaining the age of 55 year, whichever was earlier. The applicant was discharged from the D.S.C service on completion of his initial term of engagement of ten years, which took place with effect from 31st March 2007. As the applicant was in low medical category and was accordingly found suffering from the medical disability Neurotic depression, BEE (permanent) for œHypertension?, which had aggravated due to the Military Service to the extent of 20%, he was sanctioned disability pension for the D.S.C service, which he is drawing since the date of his discharge.
5. The Government of India, Ministry of Defence, vide the letter No.1 (2)/97/D(Pen-C) dated 31st January 2001, para 7.2 extended the benefit of rounding off of the disability pension to all those persons, whose tenure stood cut due to the invalidment from the service. According to the said Policy, 20% disability is liable to be rounded off to 50%. So, the applicant, by way of the instant O.A, claims the benefit of rounding off of the disability pension to the extent of 50%.
6. Mr.Ramesh C.R appearing for the applicant submitted that as per the term of engagement the applicant was entitled to be considered for extension of service till the age of 55 years or for a fixed tenure of five years, whichever was earlier, but due to the disability the applicant stood discharged from the D.S.C service, which resulted in reducing his tenure.
7. In our view, the extension of tenure could not be claimed by the applicant as of right. Had he been in good medical category, he would have been entitled for being considered for extension. But mere entitlement for such consideration cannot be treated that he was entitled to continue in service after the expiry of the initial term of engagement of ten years. In this view of the matter, the applicant had only ten years tenure in D.S.C. as per the term of his engagement, which he had completed by the date, he was discharged from the D.S.C service. In this view of the matter, his tenure did not cut due to his discharge from the D.S.C service, and as such, he is not entitled to the benefit of rounding off of the disability pension.
8. The aforesaid aspect was thoroughly considered by this Bench in O.A.No.120 of 2011 and connected cases (RAMAN RAVEENDRAN and Others vs. Union of India and Others) on 21-03-2013. In that case, the Bench had taken the opinion that the benefit of rounding off of the disability pension was not available to a person who completed the tenure. The relevant observations made in para 36 being relevant, is reproduced as follows:-
œ36. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the benefit of broad banding (rounding off) of the pension as provided in para 7.2 or 10.2 of the Government Letter dated 31.1.2001 has been confined to only those whose tenure is cut due to invalidment from the service on account of the disability. Such benefit is not available to the persons who are retained in service despite the disability/war injury and are allowed to complete their tenure. In this connection, a reference may be made to paragraphs 8.1 and 8.2 in the matter of disability pension and para 11.4 and 11.5 in the matter of war injury pension?.
9. In view of the aforesaid, the O.A has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.
10. There will be no order as to costs.
11. Issue free copy of this order to both side.