Military service may count toward civil pension under Rule 16, subject to refund of gratuity with interest.

The petitioner served in the Indian Army from 15 November 1977 to 23 July 1983 and was voluntarily discharged.

He joined TANGEDCO as a driver on 28 March 1996, was promoted, and retired on 29 February 2016.

TANGEDCO calculated his pension on the basis of his civil service alone, declining to count his military service.

Its decision relied on the absence of applicable TANGEDCO regulations and the petitioner’s failure to establish repayment of any military gratuity.

The petitioner sought certiorari and consequential relief, relying on Rule 16 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.

1. Whether the petitioner’s military service could be counted as qualifying service under Rule 16 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, for calculating his TANGEDCO pension

2. Whether the petitioner had to establish that he received no military service gratuity or had repaid any gratuity received, with the prescribed interest, before that service could be counted

Rule 16 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 permits a person re-employed in civil service, subject to its conditions, to count previous military service as qualifying service.

Where the person elects to count that service, the relevant military pension and gratuity amounts must be refunded with the prescribed interest; the right to count the prior service does not revive until the required refund is made.

The Court also relied on the Division Bench decision in W.A.(MD) No. 958 of 2011, which rejected the contention that military service could not be counted merely because the serviceman had been discharged at his own request, in the circumstances considered there.

The Court found the petitioner’s military and TANGEDCO service undisputed and noted that he had not drawn a military pension.

The remaining question was whether he had received a service gratuity and, if so, whether he had repaid it with the interest required by Rule 16.

Applying Rule 16 and the cited Division Bench decision, the Court held that the impugned rejection could not stand without fresh consideration of the gratuity issue.

It therefore directed the petitioner to produce evidence concerning any gratuity received or repaid, leaving the determination of his entitlement conditional on that evidence.

The petitioner must establish that he received no military service gratuity or, if he did, that he repaid it with the interest required by Rule 16.

Upon production of the relevant proof, the respondent must reckon the military service from 15 November 1977 to 23 July 1983, revise the petitioner’s pension, and pay arrears with accrued interest from his retirement on 29 February 2016 until payment.

The exercise must be completed within six weeks of receipt of the proof.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs.