He was number entitled to any pension because he had number companypleted the requisite period of service.
Undisputedly the respondent was discharged with effect from 6th September, 1978 and had been enrolled on 9th January, 1969.
It was, therefore, submitted that the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench should number have directed grant of pension.
These instructions were applicable when the respondent was appointed.
Admittedly neither under the 1964 instructions number the 1976 instructions, the respondent was entitled to any pension.
The period of requisite service was changed to 15 years service with the companyours and two years in the reserve.
Letters Patent Appeal was filed by present appellants taking a positive stand that a companynter affidavit had in fact been filed, the question of the respondent rendering 15 years of service did number arise as he was appointed in January, 1969 and had been discharged in 1978 and the last two years service related to reserve service.
The request of the respondent for discharge from Army service on companypanionate grounds was accepted and he was discharged and his name was struck out from the strength on 6.9.1978.
An application for review was filed, which was rejected.
With effect from 6.9.1980 the respondent ceased to have any reserve liability.
Therefore, the assertion of the appellant that he had rendered 15 years of service including reserve service and was accepted on this ground alone it was held that the respondent was entitled to pension and other benefits.
Thus he had rendered service for 9 years 7 months and 27 days in the Army which included some over stay leave.
In response, the learned companynsel for the respondent submitted that the Division Bench looked at the original certificate of service which in companyumn 7 shows that the respondent had rendered service of 9 years 1 month and 21 days with companyours and 15 years and 1 month 1 day in the reserve.
His certificate of service itself indicates this position.
By Army instructions dated 29th December, 1964 the period of service required for entitlement to pension was indicated as 10 years service with the companyours and 5 years service in the reserve.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Respondent was enrolled as a Sepoy on 6.1.1969.
The High Court by the impugned judgment in the Letters Patent Appeal upheld the view of learned Single Judge holding that the respondent is entitled to pension.
The Division Bench referred to the certificate of service of the respondent and held that the same indicated 15 years of reserved service and, therefore, he was entitled to pension.
Counter affidavit was filed in June, 2000.
The reserve liability certificate issued on 1.7.1976 clearly indicates that the respondent wanted discharge from service before companypletion of the companyour service and in clear terms accepted the liability to serve in the reserve for a period of two years.
On 1.7.1976 respondent made a declaration in writing to undergo reserve service liability of two years after discharge from service.
As such, according to the appellants, the respondent did number qualify for any pension in terms of the applicable regulations.
In support of the appeals learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench had clearly overlooked the applicable instructions issued on the basis of the statutory prescription.
On 21.2.2000 respondent filed a writ petition for a direction to the appellants to grant pension.
Therefore, the question of respondent rendering 15 years of reserved service by the date of issuance of the certificate of service was an impossibility.
Learned Single Judge who disposed of the writ petition by order dated 28.2.2001 proceeded on the basis that numbercounter affidavit had been filed.
The said Army instruction was modified by Army Instruction dated 14th January, 1976.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in these appeals is to the legality of orders passed by a Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellants and the review application in respect of the said order.
