LEGAL ISSUE: Entitlement to service element of disability pension for Navy personnel discharged with a disability after completing their engagement period but before completing the qualifying service for a regular pension.
CASE TYPE: Service Law/Armed Forces Tribunal
Case Name: Union of India & Ors. vs. V.R. Nanukuttan Nair
Judgment Date: 7 November 2019
Date of the Judgment: 7 November 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 1083
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., Hemant Gupta, J.
Can a naval personnel, who is discharged due to a disability after completing their initial engagement period but before completing the 15 years of qualifying service for a regular pension, be denied the service element of disability pension? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent judgment, clarifying the rights of disabled veterans. The court examined the Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964, to determine if personnel discharged with a disability after their engagement period are entitled to the service component of disability pension, even if they haven’t completed the full 15 years of service required for a regular pension. This judgment, delivered by a two-judge bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, has significant implications for armed forces personnel.
Case Background
The respondent, V.R. Nanukuttan Nair, was a member of the Indian Navy. He was discharged on June 30, 1978, after completing 10 years and 169 days of service. He had been in a low medical category since 1970. Post-discharge, he was granted a disability pension at 50% due to Viral Myocarditis. However, he was denied the service element of the disability pension because he had not completed 15 years of service, which is the qualifying period for a regular service pension.
The respondent challenged this denial before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that he was entitled to the service element of disability pension from the date of his discharge. The Union of India then appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1970 | Respondent placed in low medical category. |
| June 30, 1978 | Respondent discharged from the Indian Navy after 10 years and 169 days of service. |
| Post-discharge | Respondent granted 50% disability pension for Viral Myocarditis but denied service element. |
| – | Respondent appeals to the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi. |
| October 26, 2010 | Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi rules in favor of the respondent. |
| April 12, 2011 | Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi reaffirms its decision. |
| November 7, 2019 | Supreme Court dismisses the appeal of Union of India. |
Course of Proceedings
The Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi, initially ruled that the respondent was entitled to the service element of disability pension based on Regulations 101 and 107 of the Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964. The Tribunal reasoned that since the respondent was invalided from service due to a disability, he was entitled to the full disability pension, including the service element. The Union of India appealed this decision, arguing that the respondent was not boarded out of service due to disability but was discharged on completion of his engagement period. The Supreme Court then heard the appeal.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court examined several key regulations from the Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964:
- Regulation 78: This regulation states that the minimum qualifying service for a service pension is fifteen years, unless otherwise provided.
- Regulation 101: This regulation stipulates that a disability pension may be granted to a person who is invalided from service due to a disability attributable to or aggravated by service, assessed at 20% or over.
- Regulation 101A: This regulation states that individuals placed in a lower medical category and discharged because no suitable alternative employment can be provided are deemed to have been invalided from service.
- Regulation 105B: This regulation addresses disability at the time of discharge. It states that a sailor discharged after completing their engagement period, who is found to have a disability attributable to or aggravated by naval service, may be granted a disability element in addition to the service pension.
- Regulation 107: This regulation outlines the amount of disability pension, which includes both service and disability elements. It specifies that if an individual has not rendered sufficient service to qualify for a service pension, they are still entitled to a proportion of the minimum service pension.
- Appendix V: This appendix defines invalidment from service, stating that an individual in a lower medical category at the time of release is treated as invalided from service.
These regulations collectively define the conditions for granting disability pensions, the qualifying service for regular pensions, and the circumstances under which individuals are considered to be invalided from service due to disability.
Arguments
Arguments by the Appellants (Union of India):
- The applicant was not boarded out of service due to disability but was discharged on completion of his engagement.
- Disability pension has two components: a disability element and a service element. The service element is granted as per applicable rules and regulations.
- The qualifying service for earning a pension is 15 years. An individual who has not rendered 15 years of qualifying service and was not boarded out due to disability is not entitled to the service element of the pension.
- Regulation 105B applies to individuals not invalided out of service due to disability who have not opted for continuation in the Armed Forces. It provides a disability element in addition to the service pension, which is admissible on completion of 15 years of service.
- The initial engagement period was 10 years, with an option for re-engagement. The applicant did not complete the qualifying service of 15 years, as per Regulation 78, and is therefore not entitled to the service element.
- The judgment in T.S. Das & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. [(2017) 4 SCC 218] supports the argument that completion of 15 years of service is essential for a service pension.
Arguments by the Respondent (V.R. Nanukuttan Nair):
- Regulation 105B was introduced to clarify that the benefit of the disability element for those who have completed their engagement period is in addition to the service pension, not to deny the service element.
- The provision was inserted to avoid dual payment of the service element, once as part of the disability pension and again as a service pension.
- For individuals invalided out of service or who have completed less than 15 years of qualifying service, the disability pension, including the service element, is computed and payable under Regulation 107.
- Regulation 107 deals with individuals who have not rendered sufficient service to qualify for a service pension. The service element is granted in proportion to the minimum service pension, and this regulation would be rendered useless if the appellant’s argument were accepted.
- The applicant was invalided out of service on account of disability.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions by Appellants | Sub-Submissions by Respondent |
|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to Service Element of Disability Pension |
✓ Applicant was discharged on completion of engagement, not due to disability. ✓ Service element requires completion of 15 years of qualifying service. ✓ Regulation 105B applies only when not invalided out due to disability. ✓ Reliance on T.S. Das case for 15 years service requirement. |
✓ Regulation 105B clarifies disability element is in addition to service pension. ✓ Regulation 107 provides for service element even without 15 years of service. ✓ Regulation 105B avoids dual payment, not denial of service element. ✓ Applicant was invalided out of service on account of disability. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court addressed the following issue:
- Whether the applicant is entitled to the service element of disability pension corresponding to the number of years he has put in the service of the Navy, despite not completing 15 years of qualifying service for a regular pension?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the applicant is entitled to the service element of disability pension? | Yes | The Court held that the applicant is entitled to the service element of disability pension, even if he has not completed 15 years of qualifying service. The court interpreted the regulations to mean that those invalided out due to disability are entitled to service element in proportion to their service. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How the Authority was Considered |
|---|---|---|
| T.S. Das & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. [(2017) 4 SCC 218] | Supreme Court of India | The court distinguished this case, stating that it was related to the grant of special pension and not disability pension. |
| Nalinakhya Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar [AIR 1953 SC 148] | Supreme Court of India | The court cited this case to emphasize that courts cannot add words to a statute and must interpret the language as it is. |
| Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board v. Indraprastha Gas Limited & Ors. [(2015) 9 SCC 209] | Supreme Court of India | The court referred to this case to reiterate that the role of the judiciary is to ascertain the intention of the legislature from the words used and to give effect to it. |
| Surjit Singh Kalra v. Union of India [(1991) 2 SCC 87] | Supreme Court of India | The court cited this case to state that courts can supply words to a statute if they have been accidentally omitted or if not doing so would deprive certain existing words of all meaning. |
| Bhola Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 4486 of 2002) | Supreme Court of India | The court noted that this case did not refer to Regulations 105B and 107 and was therefore not helpful to the arguments made by the appellants. |
Judgment
| Submission by the Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| The applicant was not boarded out of service due to disability but was discharged on completion of his engagement. | The Court rejected this submission, stating that Regulation 101A and Appendix V of the Regulations treat individuals in lower medical categories at the time of release as invalided out of service. |
| The service element is admissible only on completion of 15 years of service. | The Court held that Regulation 105B does not restrict the service element to individuals who have completed 15 years of service. It is payable to those who are invalided out of service due to disability. |
| Regulation 105B is applicable only when an individual is not invalided out of service on account of disability. | The Court held that Regulation 105B is applicable to sailors who are discharged after completing their engagement period and who have earned only service gratuity. |
| The judgment in T.S. Das case supports the argument that completion of 15 years of service is essential for a service pension. | The Court distinguished this case, stating that it was related to the grant of special pension and not disability pension. |
| Regulation 105B was introduced to clarify that the benefit of the disability element for those who have completed their engagement period is in addition to the service pension, not to deny the service element. | The Court accepted this submission, stating that the purpose of Regulation 105B is to exclude dual payment of the service element, not to deny it. |
| For individuals invalided out of service or who have completed less than 15 years of qualifying service, the disability pension, including the service element, is computed and payable under Regulation 107. | The Court accepted this submission, stating that Regulation 107 provides for the service element even when an individual has not completed 15 years of service. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court distinguished T.S. Das & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. [(2017) 4 SCC 218]* stating it was not a case of disability pension.
- The Court relied on Nalinakhya Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar [AIR 1953 SC 148]* to emphasize that courts cannot add words to a statute.
- The Court referred to Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board v. Indraprastha Gas Limited & Ors. [(2015) 9 SCC 209]* to reiterate that the judiciary must interpret the law as it is.
- The Court cited Surjit Singh Kalra v. Union of India [(1991) 2 SCC 87]* to state that courts can supply words if accidentally omitted.
- The Court found Bhola Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 4486 of 2002)* not helpful as it did not refer to relevant regulations.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors, including the need to interpret the Navy (Pension) Regulations harmoniously and the intention to provide a beneficial provision for individuals who have suffered disabilities during their service. The court emphasized that the purpose of disability pension is to support those who have been injured while serving their country, and this purpose should not be undermined by a narrow interpretation of the regulations. The court also emphasized the need to avoid dual payment of service element, but not to deny it altogether.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Beneficial Interpretation of Regulations | 30% |
| Harmonious Construction of Regulations | 25% |
| Avoidance of Dual Payment, not denial of benefit | 20% |
| Purpose of Disability Pension | 15% |
| Rejection of Narrow Interpretation | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s decision was primarily driven by legal interpretation (70%), focusing on the correct understanding and application of the Navy (Pension) Regulations. However, factual aspects (30%) of the case, such as the respondent’s disability and service period, also played a role in the Court’s reasoning.
Logical Reasoning:
The court rejected the argument that the service element of disability pension is only admissible upon completion of 15 years of service. The court held that the regulations should be interpreted harmoniously to advance the remedy intended by the statute, which is to provide support to those who have suffered disabilities in the course of duty.
The Court stated, “The interpretation as argued by the learned ASG leads to addition of words in Regulation 105B which is not permissible as the Regulations have to be interpreted harmoniously and not by adding words to the Regulations.”
The Court further observed, “A reading of all the regulations harmoniously and keeping in view the object of grant of disability pension, we find that the interpretation which advances the object and purpose of the grant of disability needs to be accepted being a beneficial provision for a class of individuals who have suffered disability in the course of duty.”
The court also noted, “It, thus, transpires that by judicial interpretation, words cannot be added to a statute, which would include the Rules, Regulations and Instructions issued under a Statute, as an excuse to give effect to its plain meaning of the language of the regulations.”
Key Takeaways
- Naval personnel discharged due to a disability after completing their initial engagement period, but before completing 15 years of service, are entitled to the service element of disability pension.
- The service element is calculated in proportion to the completed years of service, with a minimum of two-thirds of the minimum service pension.
- The regulations must be interpreted harmoniously to advance the purpose of providing support to those who have suffered disabilities in the course of duty.
Directions
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and directed the appellants to pay the arrears of the service element, preferably within four months, in line with the directions issued by the Tribunal.
Development of Law
The judgment clarifies that the service element of disability pension is not restricted to those who have completed 15 years of qualifying service. The ratio decidendi is that naval personnel who are invalided out of service due to disability are entitled to the service element of disability pension, even if they have not completed 15 years of service. This judgment reinforces the principle that beneficial provisions for disabled veterans should be interpreted liberally to achieve their intended purpose.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal’s decision, affirming that naval personnel discharged with a disability after completing their engagement period are entitled to the service element of disability pension, even if they have not completed the full 15 years of service required for a regular pension. This judgment ensures that veterans who have suffered disabilities while serving their country receive the financial support they deserve.