DSC personnel are entitled to condonation of service deficiency for second service pension eligibility.

The Respondents are ex-servicemen who, after retiring from the Regular Army with a service pension, re-enrolled in the Defence Security Corps (DSC).

Upon re-enrollment, they opted to continue drawing their first pension while serving in the DSC, rendering their second spell of service independent of the first.

The Union of India (Appellants) denied them a second service pension because their DSC service fell short of the mandatory 15-year qualifying period.

The Appellants contended that "condonation of deficiency in service" (up to one year) is intended only to ensure a soldier gets at least one pension and does not apply to a second pension, supported by executive letters issued in 2017 and 2022.

The Respondents sought condonation of shortfalls (some less than a year, some more) based on the Pension Regulations and the principle of "rounding off" fractions of service.

The court applied Paragraph 266 (1961 Regulations) and Paragraph 173 (2008 Regulations), which mandate that Regular Army pension rules apply to DSC personnel unless "inconsistent".

It relied on Note 5 of the MoD Letter dated 30th October 1987, which stipulates that a service fraction of three to six months shall be treated as a completed half-year.

The court further applied Paragraph 44 of the Pension Regulations, 2008 (and Para 125 of 1961), allowing condonation of service deficiency up to 12 months.

Crucially, the court followed Union of India v. Surender Singh Parmar (2015) 3 SCC 404, which affirmed the right to condonation up to one year and rounding off.

Distinguishing Ex Sep Chhatar Pal v. Union of India (C.A. 6692/2019) on the grounds that it dealt with disciplinary discharge rather than voluntary retirement.

The Court rejected the Appellants' argument that separate DSC pension provisions (Para 175) created an "inconsistency" that barred the general condonation rule (Para 44).

It held that "inconsistency" requires mutual contradiction, and since Para 175 is silent on condonation, Para 44 is incorporated by reference.

The Court observed that once a soldier joins the DSC as a separate engagement, the service is independent; thus, the "one pension only" logic is not supported by the Regulations.

The Court ruled that the Appellants cannot override statutory Pension Regulations through executive letters (2017/2022) as administrative instructions cannot amend valid regulations on the statute book.

Regarding computation, the Court held that the "rounding off" beneficial provision (Note 5) must be applied first to determine the length of service before considering condonation.

The Court directed the Appellants to: (i) first determine the qualifying service length by treating fractions of 3 months or more as a completed half-year per Note 5 of the 1987 letter.

(ii) if a shortfall of one year or less remains thereafter, condone such deficiency for pension eligibility under Para 125 (1961) or Para 44 (2008) of the Regulations.

The Court reaffirmed that pension is a vested property right and not a bounty.