The Gauhati High Court has affirmed the Armed Forces Tribunal’s (AFT) directive to the Centre, mandating the provision of a second pension to a retired Defence Security Corps (DSC) veteran, Manoranjan Ozah. This ruling comes after Ozah, hailing from Assam’s Nagaon district, fell short of the necessary qualifying service by a mere 10 months and two days.
The Central government initially challenged the AFT’s decision, but subsequently withdrew its petition following a recent judgment by the Supreme Court of India that favored ex-servicemen seeking leniency for minor deficiencies in their service durations to qualify for pensions.
The High Court bench, comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury, addressed the case of Ozah, who had served in the Indian Army as an electrical mechanical engineer until 2001. Afterward, he joined the DSC in 2005, completing his service there in March 2019. However, his total service time amounted to 14 years, one month, and 28 days, just shy of the 15-year threshold required for a second pension.
The Defence authorities had denied Ozah the pension benefits on the grounds that condoning his short service would equate to providing “dual benefits,” as he was already receiving an Army pension for his previous service. Nevertheless, the AFT ruled in Ozah’s favor, invoking Regulation 125 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, which allowed the Tribunal to overlook the shortfall in service. The tribunal not only directed the authorities to revise Ozah’s Pension Payment Order but also instructed the payment of any owed arrears.
During the High Court hearings, the Centre communicated that it would not pursue its petition further, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Union of India vs Balakrishnan Mullikote case. This landmark decision clarified that personnel with a qualifying service shortfall of one year or less are eligible to seek condonation under pension regulations. The court emphasized that a second pension received through DSC service is a distinct entitlement, separate from an Army pension.
In light of the Supreme Court ruling, the Gauhati High Court dismissed the Centre’s petition as “not pressed.” Legal experts believe that this judgment could set a precedent with far-reaching implications for numerous former soldiers in the Defence Security Corps who have faced rejections of second pension applications due to minimal service deficiencies, despite their continued commitment to military service.
