Sub. Maj. Hony Lt. Nachhattar Singh v. Union Of India & Ors., Armed Forces Tribunal, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

O.A No. 02 of 2011

Advocates

Sh. J.S Manhas, Advocate, ;
Sh. Mohan Kumar, Advocate,

Judges

A.K Mathur
Chairperson
Z.U Shah, Member

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The Petitioner, after enrolment in the Army Corps of Engineers on 9 July 1963, received a Junior Commission as Nb/Subedar on 14 August 1976 and was promoted to Subedar Major on 6 August 1987. He retired on 1 September 1992. On 26 January 1993 the Petitioner was granted the honorary rank of Lieutenant effective from his retirement date of 1 September 1992.

The Petitioner alleged that certain benefits were not granted and filed a writ petition (CWP No. 978) in the Delhi High Court on 16 February 1993. A statement on behalf of the Government and an order dated 20 October 2006 were placed on record indicating certain additional benefits that would be entitled if the Petitioner were granted honorary lieutenant (Hony Lt.) or honorary captain (Hony Capt.) with values for basic pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity listed for both ranks.

The Delhi High Court disposed of the matter on 2 January 2007 in terms of the statement made; a subsequent review was dismissed and an SLP before the Supreme Court was dismissed on 2 March 2009. The Petitioner contends that benefits arising from that process were granted to him but now seeks a further grant of the honorary rank of Captain (Hony. Capt.) retrospectively (from either 26 January 1993 or 15 August 1993) with consequential financial benefits and interest.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Petitioner has a right to be granted the honorary rank of Captain (Hony. Capt.) as a matter of law, based on the materials and reports already placed on record.
Whether this Court can direct the Respondents — in particular, the Chief of the Army Staff — to grant or consider granting the Petitioner the honorary rank of Captain.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The Petitioner (through his counsel) contended that on assessment he obtained 42 marks and, on that basis, should have been considered for the grant of the honorary rank of Captain.
The Petitioner relied on Regulation 179 of the Army Regulations (Honorary Ranks on Retirement) to assert entitlement or a basis to be considered for Hony. Capt.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of specific arguments advanced by the Respondents in opposition to the petition.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's analysis centers on the interpretation and application of Regulation 179(b) of the Army Regulations, which governs the grant of honorary ranks on retirement. The Court quoted Regulation 179(b), which states in essence that, in very exceptional cases, JCOs who have served with special distinction and meet certain criteria may be granted the honorary rank of Captain or Lieutenant on retirement if recommended for the honour.

The Court proceeded by identifying the legal character of the grant under Regulation 179(b) as discretionary and dependent on the recommendation of the Chief of the Army Staff (COS). The key points of the Court's reasoning are:

Regulation 179(b) contemplates grants of honorary rank in "very exceptional cases" and conditions the grant on a recommendation by the COS.
The regulation permits the COS discretion to grant either Hony. Lt. or Hony. Capt. where an exceptional case is found; it does not create an entitlement to any particular honorary rank as a matter of right.
The Petitioner had in fact been found meritorious to the extent that he was granted Hony. Lt. after retirement, indicating the exercise of the relevant discretion in his case.
Because the grant of Hony. Capt. is contingent on the COS's recommendation and is discretionary, the Court cannot command the Respondents (or the COS) to grant Hony. Capt. to the Petitioner or to reconsider the matter in such a way as to transform a discretionary administrative recommendation into a judicially enforceable right.
The Petitioner’s assertion about receiving 42 marks was noted, but the Petitioner had not pleaded facts showing comparative treatment (for example, that a junior person was granted Hony. Capt.), and in any event the Court held that the underlying decision is for the COS’s considered discretion on merit.

On these bases the Court concluded that it could not issue a mandamus directing grant of Hony. Capt. or compel the COS to change the recommendation already made; the matter rests on the COS's discretionary recommendation.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The petition is dismissed: the Court declined to direct the Respondents to grant the Petitioner the honorary rank of Captain and declined to direct the Chief of the Army Staff to grant such rank. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The Court also refused the Petitioner leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, finding that the case did not involve a question of law of public importance; leave to appeal was refused.

Implications:

Direct effect on the parties: The Petitioner remains granted only the honorary rank of Lieutenant (as already granted); he is not entitled, as a matter of right, to the honorary rank of Captain, and the Court will not substitute its view for the discretionary recommendation of the Chief of the Army Staff.
The opinion does not purport to set or announce any broader legal precedent beyond applying the text of Regulation 179(b) to the facts; no new principle of general application was announced by the Court in this decision.

Show full summary ...

Sub. Maj. Hony Lt. Nachhattar Singh v. Union Of India & Ors.

1. Petitioner by this petition has prayed that the Respondents may be directed to grant the Petitioner rank of Hony. Capt. with effect from 26 January 1993 or 15 August 1993 with consequential benefits and should also to pay all financial benefits for Hony rank with 12% interest.

2. Petitioner was enrolled in Army Corps of Engineers on 9 July 1963 and he was granted Junior Commission in rank of Nb/Subedar on 14 August 1976 and promoted to rank of Sub Major on 6 August 1987. Thereafter Petitioner retired on 1 September 1992 and he was granted Hony. rank of Lt. on 26 January 1993 with effect from 1 September 1992 i.e the date of his retirement.

3. Petitioner was not granted certain benefits therefore litigation followed and Petitioner filed a writ petition in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 16 February 1993 and a statement was made on behalf of the Government before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that Petitioner will be granted all the benefits in terms of the order dated 20 October 2006 with effect from 1 September 1992 and the order dated 20 October 2006 has also been placed on record which reads as under:

“Mil Tele 6626 Abhilekh Bengal Abhiyanta Samooth Bengal Engineer Group Records PIN-900177 (C/) 56 APO NE Legal/CC No. 8/9/153.R Legal Cell (High Court) HQ Delhi Area Delhi Cantt-10

CWP No. 978 Filed by JC-76885 Ex Sub Maj. Nachhattar Singh v. UOI in Delhi High Court (REGN 47/24)

1. Refer to your Sig No. A-2524 dated 28 Sep 2006

2. The following additional benefits were entitled on the date of retirement (SOS) 1 Sep 1992, in case the Petitioner was granted Hony Lt. and Hony Capt:—

(a) Sub Mai (Honv Lt.)

(i) Basic Pension Rs. 1,650/- (ii) Death Cum-Retirement Gratuity Rs. 54,450/- (iii) Sub Maj (Hony Capt) (i) Basic Pension Rs. 1,700/- (ii) Death-Cum-Retirement-Gratuity Rs. 56,100/-

3. In view of the above, you are requested to apprise facts to the Hon'ble Court through CGSC on next date of hearing fixed in ibid case on 02 Jan 2007.

Therefore, Courier for this purpose is not required.

Lt. Col.

Senior Record Officer For OIC Records.”

4. In terms of the statement made by learned counsel for the Petitioner the Hon'ble Delhi High Court by the order dated 2 January 2007 disposed of the matter. Thereafter a review application was filed and that review application was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the matter was taken up in SLP before Hon'ble Supreme Court and then SLP was dismissed on 2 March 2009. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in terms of that dismissal of the SLP all benefits pertaining to that have been granted to him. Now Petitioner by this petition is agitating that he be granted the rank of Hony Capt. In this connection, learned counsel for the Petitioner has invited our attention to Regulation 179 of the Army Regulations. Regulation 179 reads as under:

“179. Honorary Ranks on Retirement—

(a) A step of honorary rank on retirement with the title of honorary Risaldar Major, Subedar Major, Risaldar, or Subedar may be bestowed on JCOs who are recommended by the Chief of the Army Staff, as specially deserving of the honour.

(b) In very exceptional cases JCOs who have served with special distinction, and who have attained the rank of Risaldar Major or Subedar Major or have held the appointment of ADC to the President, a Governor or the Chief of the Army Staff, or GOC-in-command, or who have been awarded the PVC/VC/MVC or VrC/MC may be granted the honorary rank of Captain or Lieutenant on retirement, if recommended for the honour.”

5. The question is whether Petitioner as a matter of right can claim benefit of Hony. Capt. Regulation 179(b) clearly says that in very exceptional cases JCOs who have served with special distinction, and who have attained the rank of Risaldar Major or Subedar Major or have held the appointment of ADC to the President, a Governor or the Chief of the Army Staff, or GOC-in-command, or who have been awarded the PVCA/C/MVC or VrC/MC may be granted the honorary rank of Captain or Lieutenant on retirement, if recommended for the honour. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that according to his assessment he got 42 marks and he should have been considered for the grant of the Hony. rank of Capt. though he has not pleaded that either person junior to him was granted that rank or not. Be that as it may, the fact remains can we direct the Respondents that he should be granted or he should be considered for the grant of Hony. rank of Capt. A bare reading of Army Regulation 179(b) makes it clear that in very exceptional cases, if recommended by the Chief of the Army Staff such persons can be granted the rank of either Hony. Lt. or Hony. Capt. after retirement. It is not necessary that a person can only be granted the rank of Hony. Lt. and he can be granted the rank of Hony. Capt. It is the choice of the Chief of the Army Staff that he can if he finds that a person is meritorious he can directly be granted the rank of Hony. Capt. after retirement. In the present case it appears that Petitioner's case was found an exceptional case and he was granted rank of Hony. Lt. after his retirement. We cannot direct the Respondents that he should be also considered for grant of the rank of Hony. Capt. as an exceptional case. Whether it is an exceptional case or not it depends on the recommendations of the Chief of the Army Staff. He was a Sub. Maj and he was found meritorious therefore he was granted the rank of Hony. Lt. after his retirement. He as a matter of right cannot seek a mandamus that now on same reports he must be granted the rank of Hony. Capt. Therefore it is not a matter of right. It solely depends on the recommendations of the Chief of the Army Staff. Since the Chief of the Army Staff has only recommended him for grant of rank of Hony. Lt. therefore we do not think that we can direct the Respondents to grant him rank of Hony. Capt. Consequently, we cannot direct the Chief of the Army Staff to grant him rank of Hony. Capt. as it is for the Chief of the Army Staff to consider the case of the Petitioner on merit. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this petition and same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks leave to appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This is not a fit case to be certified to appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as it does not involve any question of law of public importance. Leave refused.

Sub. Maj. Hony Lt. Nachhattar Singh v. Union Of India & Ors.

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Sub. Maj. Hony Lt. Nachhattar Singh v. Union Of India & Ors.

Comments