UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. vs NO.802544GEX-NC(E) LASKAR BHAGIRATH MONDAL

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