[2025:RJ-JP:34348-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10059/2025 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, To The Government Of India, Ministry Of Defence, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Controller Of Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad (UP) 3. The Officer-In-Charge Records, The EME Records, Secunderabad (AP). ----Petitioners Versus Ex. NK. Sub. Om Prakash Sharma JC No. 133313 S/o Shri Chiranjilal Sharma, Aged About 82 Years, R/o Village And Post Dabri Dheersingh Via Mandralla, District Jhunjhunu (Raj). ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Nandini Chaturvedi for Mr. Prashant Chaturvedi For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 28/08/2025 1. The challenge is to the judgment dated 11.10.2022 passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench Jaipur, (for short, "AFT") whereby the AFT granted the benefit of pension on the complete service rendered by the respondent at the time of invalidation i.e., 27 years 11 months and 3 days as on 25.11.1992. 2. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that vide letter dated 30.10.1987, a Naib person who has put in 20 years in service would be retired and would receive the pension as fixed [2025:RJ-JP:34348-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-10059/2025] therein and therefore, even though the respondent had actually put in 27 years, 11 months of service of having been remustered as Religious Teacher since 1983, he would be given only benefits as Naib Subedar up to the maximum 26 years of service, his pension, therefore, could not have been directed to be revised treating the service rendered by him of 27 years, 11 months and 3 days. 3. We are unable to accept the contentions raised before us while the Government of India circular dated 30.10.1987 lays down in Para No.6(c) as under: "(a) The minimum period of qualifying service (without weightage) actually rendered and required for earning service pension will continue to be 15 years (20 years in the case of NCs(E) ). (b) Service pension in respect of the personnel below officer rank of the three services (including those of the DSC and TA but excluding reservists) for 33 years of qualifying service shall be calculated at 50% of the emoluments reckonable for pension as defined in para 3 above, and for lesser period of qualifying service (as defined in para 5 above) it shall be reduced proportionately; the amount of service pension finally arrived at shall be subject to a minimum of Rs.375/- p.m. (c) Based on (a) and (b) above, tables of rates of service, pension for various ranks/groups of personnel below officer rank and Honorary Commissioned Officers of the three Services who have opted for the revised scales of pay are given in Annexures A, B, C, D and E attached to this letter. The rates of pension have been arrived at by adding a weightage of 5 years to the qualifying [2025:RJ-JP:34348-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-10059/2025] service actually rendered. For instance, the pension for 15 years service has been arrived by taking into account qualifying service of 20 years (including a weightage of 5 years). Service pension in the case of TA personnel will be determined by the CDA(P) be taking into account the reckonable emoluments and qualifying service as defined in paras 3 and 5." 4. Clause c of Para 6.2 referring to the Rules of service pension for various ranks and groups in Annexure-A referring to Naib Subedar as 26 years only to inform as to how the scales of pay and rules of service pension shall be provided, thus, if a person is holding the post of Naib Subedar in ordinary post, he would have maximum completed 26 years of service and thereafter would get pension of Rs. 987/- in terms of Group E, however, it does not mean that if a Naib Subedar continues to work with the Armed Forces and rendered services more than 26 years, the said service would not be counted for the purpose of pension and looking at para 6.2(b) (supra) reflects that maximum 33 years of qualifying service can be considered for calculation of pension where emoluments up to 50% shall be given. We noticed that after the respondent worked as Naib Subedar till 1982, he was remustered as Naib Subedar Religious Teacher w.e.f. 04.07.1983 and continued to work on the said post till he had boarded in November, 1992. He would, therefore, be entitled to receive pension on the basis of entire period of service which he has rendered with the Armed Forces in terms of Rule 6.2(b)(supra). The order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal dated 11.10.2022, therefore, does not warrant any interference. We also noticed that the writ petition has been preferred in the year 2025 relating to [2025:RJ-JP:34348-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-10059/2025] order passed way back in the year 2022 without there being any cogent reason coming forward in the delay, on that count also, we find that the petition does not deserve to be entertained. 5. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. Pending applicaiton(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J GAURAV/AVINASH/26