21. WP.CT 45 of 2026 Judgment.odt ORDER SHEET WBCHCA0067172026 PG SL. No. 21 Ct. No.1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WP.CT. 45 of 2026 1. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110011 2. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF AIR VETERANS, AIR HQ, AFRO BUILDING, SUBROTO PARK, NEW DELHI – 110010 3. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, AIR FORCE RECORD OFFICE, SUBROTO PARK, NEW DELHI – 110010 4. THE JOINT CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (AIR FORCE), SUBROTO PARK, NEW DELHI - 110010 ….Petitioners Versus NO.802544Gex-NC (E)/ LASKAR BHAGIRATH MONDAL SON OF LATE KANAI LALMONDAL, RESIDING AT VILLAGE & POST OFFICE – AMNAKANDIA, DISTRICT – NORTH 24 PARGANAS, PIN – 743249, WEST BENGAL ….Respondent ---- Mr. Ajay Gaggar Mr. Sourav Sengupta Ms. Srijeeta Gupta Mr. Subhamoy Bhattacharjee 1 of 11 21. WP.CT 45 of 2026 Judgment.odt …..Advocates for the Petitioners Mr. Aniruddha Datta …..Advocate for the Respondent ---- CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, CJ & OM NARAYAN RAI, J. DATE: SEPTEMBER 22, 2026 ORAL JUDGEMENT (PER RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, CJ) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioners before us are Union of India and various authorities of the Air Force. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 18.08.2025, delivered by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Branch, Kolkata in O.A. No. 68 of 2022, the Petitioners have put forth the following prayers: ‘(a) Issue a writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue directing the Respondent to show cause as to why the impugned Order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the Learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kolkata in Original Application being O.A. No. 68 of 2022, shall not be set aside and/or quashed and after perusing the cause shown, if any, quash and/or set aside the impugned Order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the Learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kolkata in Original Application 2 of 11 21. WP.CT 45 of 2026 Judgment.odt being O.A. No. 68 of 2022 (Annexure P-8); (b) Issue a writ of and/or in the nature of certiorari commanding the Respondents, each one of them and/or their servants and/or subordinates and/or assigns, to transmit the entire records forming the basis of the instant case and certify the same and quash the same for rendering conscionable justice.” UNDISPUTED ASPECTS 3. The undisputed aspects in this case can be summarised as under. (a) The Respondent/Original Applicant before the Tribunal was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 19.03.1979 as a ‘Non-Combatant Enrolled’ NC(E), for a term engagement of 15 years on regular service. (b) On 19.09.1992, 18 months prior to his scheduled date of discharge, the Applicant submitted his unwillingness for a further extension of service and made an endorsement in his own handwriting stating ‘I know that I will proceed on discharge after 15 years without pensionary benefits’. The Applicant also executed a certificate of ‘Unwillingness for extension of service/regular engagement’, meaning that he would be discharged from service after fulfilling the terms of engagement of 15 years. (c) The above expression of the Applicant was around 18 months prior to his actual date of discharge with effect from 31.03.1994. On 3 of 11 21. WP.CT 45 of 2026 Judgment.odt 31.03.1994, the Applicant accepted the discharge voluntarily. (d) The Applicant approached the Armed Forces Tribunal by preferring O.A. No. 68 of 2022, almost after about 28 years, claiming that he was entitled to pensionary benefits after completing 15 years in the service with the Indian Air Force. (e) By an order dated 18.08.2025, the Armed Forces Tribunal allowed the O.A. by concluding that the Applicant was entitled for pension for life with effect from 01.04.1994. However, relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 649, the arrears of pension were restricted to three years preceding the date of filing of the O.A. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES 4. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners has canvassed the Petitioners’ case on the basis of a document dated 12.05.1986, which has its origin from the Air Headquarters, New Delhi of the Indian Air Force. It makes a reference to para 145 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 indicating that the minimum qualifying service for grant of service in respect of Non-Combatants is 20 years. He submits that the Tribunal has misread para 24 of the Pension Regulations for the Army to mean that the Government of India had abrogated the difference of Non-Combatants and Combatants in the 4 of 11 21. WP.CT 45 of 2026 Judgment.odt Army, vide letter dated 31.12.1971 and the qualifying service of pension was fixed as 18 years, but subsequently, in 1973, it was reduced to 15 years. Since the Applicant was enrolled in 1979, when the Air Force Instructions 12/69 were enforced, the service conditions of the Applicant would be governed by the Air Force Instructions 12/69. 5. He further submits that the Tribunal relied on Clause 24 and interpreted it to mean that the qualifying service for Non- Combatants would be 15 years. Clause 24 is reproduced hereunder “24. Pension- retiring, disability and family pensions will be admissible at the rates under the rules prescribed for similar categories on the Army side. In the case of non- combatants drawn from serving civilian employees who have to their credit pensionable civilian (temporary and permanent) service, order will be issued later in regarding to counting of such service for pension as NC(E)”. 6. The reproduced Clause 24 indicates that retiring, disability and family pensions will be admissible under the rules prescribed for similar categories in the Army service. In the case of non-combatants drawn from serving civilian employees, who have to their credit pensionable civilian (temporary and permanent) service (the Applicant never had pensionable service), order would be issued later in regard to counting of such service for pension as 5 of 11 21. WP.CT 45 of 2026 Judgment.odt Non-Combatants (Enrolled)[(i.e. NC(E)]. 7. He then relies upon the communication dated 31.12.1971, by which the Government of India addressed the Chief of Army Staff with regard to the sanction granted by the President of India to the ‘Combatisation’ with effect from 01.01.1972, of Non- Combatants (Enrolled) in the Army belonging to the following categories: (i) Cooks Special and Cooks Mess (ii) Barber (iii) Washerman (iv) Waiter Mess (v) Masalchi (vi) Sweeper (vii) Syce (viii) Kennelman (ix) Saddler 8. The learned Counsel submits that, on becoming Combatants, the above-mentioned personnel would be governed by the terms and conditions, which are set out in the said communication dated 31.12.1971. The Combatant personnel of the above mentioned trades would be governed by the normal terms and conditions of service and as such, the said NC (E) would be treated to be eligible for pension and seniority. It was also provided that those NC (E), who did not wish to be ‘combatised’ so as to be brought under the revised terms of engagement, could exercise an 6 of 11 21. WP.CT 45 of 2026 Judgment.odt option to that effect before 30.06.1972. 9. The learned Counsel for the Original Applicant concedes, on the basis of the record available before the Tribunal and before this Court, that there was no document placed before the Tribunal to demonstrate that the qualifying service for pension of the above-mentioned categories was reduced to 15 years. He clarifies that since one of the members of the Tribunal belonged to the Army, it is likely that it was within his personal knowledge that this was subsequently reduced to 15 years. 10. He further submits that the findings of the Tribunal should not be interfered with. A plausible view has been taken on the basis of the material before it. Though there was no document to show that the qualifying service of the Petitioner as a ‘Laskar’ was reduced to 15 years, the Non-Judicial Member of the Tribunal was aware of this fact. OUR ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS 11. It, therefore, clearly appears that the Tribunal presumed that subsequently, the qualifying service was scaled down to 15 7 of 11 21. WP.CT 45 of 2026 Judgment.odt years, without referring to any document on record. It then observes in paragraph 9 of the impugned order that the said qualifying service was later on enhanced by the Air Force Instructions 14/1980 to 20 years of qualifying service. 12. We are surprised by the Tribunal importing its personal knowledge while making such observations in paragraph 9 and in granting relief to the Applicant on the basis of such belief. Nevertheless, assuming that the Tribunal had the correct information, it cannot be disputed that only specific NCs (E) were held eligible for combatisation under the sanction of the President of India, which are the nine categories of employees mentioned in the foregoing paragraph. The Original Applicant was working in the category of Laskar. There is nothing on record before us, inasmuch as the Tribunal did not have any such record before it, to conclude that the category of Laskar of the Air Force would be presumed to be one of the nine categories mentioned above. 13. No judgment can be delivered on assumptions, surmises or conjectures. When a case of a litigant is to be considered favourably, there ought to be such documentary evidence before the Court, which would support the conclusions drawn on the basis of 8 of 11 21. WP.CT 45 of 2026 Judgment.odt the pleadings. Even the Original Applicant had not pleaded that Laskar was a category, which was covered by the decision of the Government of India dated 31.12.1971. So also, there is no pleading that the Applicant agreed to be engaged as a Combatant in view of the specific clause in the communication dated 31.12.1971, giving an option to all NCs (E) to be combatised. 14. Be that as it may, even in 1979 when the Original Applicant joined service as an NC(E), there is nothing on record to indicate that qualifying service for pension was 15 years. Moreover, there are no pleadings of the Applicant that immediately after joining service, he exercised the option of being combatised so as to be covered by the decision of the Indian Army, adopted by the Air Force, so as to derive the advantage of 15 years qualifying service. 15. Estoppel by conduct would prevent a litigant from adopting shifting stand. Firstly, the Applicant did not exercise the option to be combatised. Secondly, on 19.09.1992, 18 months prior to his regular engagement coming to an end, the Applicant expressed his 9 of 11 21. WP.CT 45 of 2026 Judgment.odt unwillingness for further extension of service and made a specific declining endorsement. He was aware that he would be putting in only 15 years, which was not qualifying service for pension. He considered this aspect while exercising his option of unwillingness for further extension. Thirdly, after 18 months, his engagement came to an end. Without any demur, he accepted his discharge and moved on in life. After about 28 years, the Original Applicant laid a claim before the Tribunal that he was entitled for pensionary benefits after putting in 15 years of service. Fourthly, it was not pleaded by him before the Tribunal that he had opted to be converted from NC (E) to ‘combatised’, keeping in view that the benefit of reduced qualifying service of 18 years or 15 years may be available only to those NC(E), who agreed to exercise the option of being combatised. Fifthly, he chose not to seek extension of his service, which option was available to him. He declined extension by declaring that he was aware that he would be discharged without pension. 16. It is well-settled that if a person has a right to pension, delay would not defeat such a claim or the cause of such a litigant. 10 of 11 21. WP.CT 45 of 2026 Judgment.odt Pension is not a bounty. If a litigant has a right to pension, he can demand it as a matter of right, notwithstanding the passage of time. Looking at the case of the Applicant even from this angle, we do not find that his claim for pension could be sustained in the light of the above discussed factors. The Tribunal apparently has erred in concluding the he was entitled for pension, in the absence of any specific Rule permitting an NC(E) to draw pension after putting in 15 years of service. 17. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has misdirected itself and without considering the above factors, has granted pensionary benefits to the Applicant de- hors the Rules. 18. In view of the above, this Petition is Allowed. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal is quashed and set aside. 19. Rule is made absolute. (OM NARAYAN RAI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE) Chief Justice 11 of 11