Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010149682025 2026:GAU-AS:7208-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4140/2025 THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, 101-A, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110011 2: THE PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (PENSIONS) DRAUPADI GHAT NEAR SADAR BAZAR PRAYAGRAJ UTTAR PRADESH- 211014 3: THE CHIEF RECORD OFFICER DSC RECORDS MIL ROAD KANNUR KERALA- 670013 4: THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (PENSIONS) PRAYAGRAJ UTTAR PRADESH- 211014. 5: SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER OFFICE OF THE CHIEF CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (PENSIONS) PRAYAGRAJ UTTAR PRADESH 211014. 6: CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS UDAYAN VIHAR NARENGI GUWAHATI- 78117 Page No.# 2/4 VERSUS MANORANJAN OZAH SO LATE AKAN CHANDRA OZAH, R/O VILLAGE - CHATIAL, P.O. KUWARITOL, DISTRICT- NAGAON, ASSAM. PIN - 782137. RETIRED NAYAK, DSC, LAST SERVED AT 394, DSC PL.ATT 14 FAD, PIN-909714, C/O 99 APO, NARENGI, SATGAON, GUWAHATI For the petitioners : Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate/D.S.G.I. For the respondent : Mr. H.P. Guwala, Advocate – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 25-05-2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.) We have heard Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate/Deputy Solicitor General of India for the petitioners/Union of India and others and Mr. H.P. Guwala, learned Advocate for the respondent. The sole respondent, after his retirement from Indian Army as an Electrical Mechanical Engineer on 31.08.2001, enrolled himself in the Defence Security Corps in the year 2005 and served in this second innings till his retirement on March 31, 2019, totalling about 14 years 1 month and Page No.# 3/4 28 days in the Defence Security Corps. He claimed his entitlement to a second service pension for his Defence Security Corps tenure under Regulation 125 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 notwithstanding the shortfall of 10 months and 2 days from the required minimum 15 years of qualifying service. The prayer of the respondent was denied by the administration which led him to file an Original Application before the Armed Forces Tribunal. It was claimed by him before the Tribunal that the shortfall must be condoned. Such prayer was opposed by the Department on the ground that the respondent was discharged under the Army Rule and he received service gratuity and Death cum Retirement Gratuity instead of pension because of his not meeting the 15 years threshold under the revised Regulations in that regard. It was urged before the Tribunal that by virtue of various circulars it was clarified that there can be no condonation of shortfall for second pension as it would only give dual benefits. Condonation is intended only to ensure that at least one pension to an individual is paid, who might otherwise be left without any pension. The Tribunal allowed the afore-noted original application of the respondent and directed for condonation of the shortfall of 10 months and 2 days and also directed for issuance of a corrigendum Pension Payment Order for granting second pension to the respondent from the date of his discharge and all payment of arrears within four months and, in default, 6% interest thereon. While saying so, the Tribunal relied on the erstwhile decisions of the Page No.# 4/4 Tribunal. Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate/Deputy Solicitor General of India submits that he does not press this writ petition challenging the order passed by the Tribunal in view of the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Balakrishnan Mullikote (Ex HAV 256812 M) [2026 Supreme (SC) 312], wherein it has been held that if, upon determination of the length of qualifying service, there remains a shortfall of one year or less, the employee shall be entitled to seek condonation of such deficiency for the purpose of pension eligibility in accordance with paragraph 125 of the Pension Regulations, 1961, or paragraph 44 of the Pension Regulations, 2008. The Supreme Court was also of the view that second pension is a distinct right, which is separate from the first stint of the employee in the regular army. If that be so, then condonation of shortfall in Defence Security Corps tenure would not be against the scheme of the Army Regulation; rather it would be entirely in accordance with it. This writ petition therefore stands dismissed as not pressed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant