Supreme Court Upholds Army Officer’s Right to Pay During Extended Study Leave
The case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Col. (TS) P.D. Poonekar was a significant legal battle concerning the rights of armed forces personnel regarding their pay and benefits during study leave. The Supreme Court, in its final ruling, upheld the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal, ensuring that the respondent, a decorated Army doctor, was entitled to his pay and allowances for the extended study leave granted by the President of India.
Personnel in the armed forces dedicate their lives to serving the nation under extremely challenging conditions. The case at hand involved a specialist in prosthetic surgery from the Army Medical Corps who had to fight a legal battle spanning more than 25 years to receive justice.
Background of the Case
Col. (TS) P.D. Poonekar, a doctor in the Army Medical Corps, was granted study leave for a period of twenty-four months to pursue a specialization in prosthetic surgery at the University of Miami, Florida. This leave was sanctioned on May 22, 1990, and he commenced his studies abroad. However, realizing the need for an extension to complete his specialization, he applied for an additional twelve months of study leave.
The extension was approved as a special case by the President of India on September 17, 1992. However, to his shock, the Army authorities discontinued his pay and allowances during this extended period. His request for the grant of pay was ultimately rejected on October 19, 2004. Feeling aggrieved, Col. Poonekar approached the Armed Forces Tribunal, which ruled in his favor, directing the Union of India to release the pay and allowances for the extended period.
Key Legal Issues
- Whether an army officer is entitled to full pay during an extended period of study leave?
- Whether the Army authorities acted lawfully in discontinuing the respondent’s pay despite approval from the President of India?
- Whether the Armed Forces Tribunal correctly interpreted the governing Army Instructions?
Petitioners’ (Union of India) Arguments
The Union of India contended that as per Clause 5 of the Army Instructions 191/62, an officer on extended study leave was not entitled to receive any pay from government funds. The appellants submitted:
“The officer, once seconded for study purposes exceeding the sanctioned period, ceases to draw pay as per the provisions laid out in the Army Instructions.”
They further argued that study leave regulations do not explicitly extend beyond twenty-four months for medical officers, thus justifying the denial of pay.
Respondent’s (Col. Poonekar) Arguments
Col. Poonekar defended the Armed Forces Tribunal’s decision, stating:
“Once the period of study leave was extended through a special order by the President of India, there was no justification for withholding my pay. I was fulfilling a critical role in the Army Medical Corps and continued my service after returning to India.”
His legal team emphasized that Clause 5 of Army Instructions 13/1978 clearly stated:
“During study leave, officers will draw full pay of the substantive rank.”
Thus, the discontinuation of his pay was illegal.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court, presided over by Justices Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, examined the competing provisions in Army Instructions 191/62 and 13/1978. The court noted:
“The submission of the appellants cannot be accepted for the simple reason that Army Instructions 13/1978, which have been issued subsequently, clearly stipulate that during the period of study leave, an officer shall draw full pay of the substantive rank.”
Furthermore, the court observed that Army Instructions were amended in 2009 to allow up to thirty-six months of study leave for post-graduate medical courses. It stated:
“Once the period of study leave was extended on a special dispensation by the President of India, there was no reason or justification for the Army authorities and the Union of India to deny the respondent the benefit of pay and allowances.”
Final Judgment
The Supreme Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal’s decision and dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India. The court directed the government to:
- Pay all outstanding dues to Col. Poonekar within two months.
- Provide interest at 9% per annum on the delayed payments.
- Recalculate and adjust his retiral benefits to account for the period of study leave.
- Grant Rs. 50,000 as compensation for unnecessary litigation.
Significance of the Judgment
This ruling is a landmark decision affirming the rights of armed forces personnel, particularly those in the medical field. It clarifies that officers on study leave are entitled to full pay and that special extensions must be honored.
Conclusion
Justice, though delayed, was ultimately served for Col. Poonekar. The ruling ensures that similar injustices do not befall other dedicated armed forces personnel in the future. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that the government must honor its commitments to those who serve the nation.
Petitioner Name: Union of India & Ors..
Respondent Name: Col. (TS) P.D. Poonekar.
Judgment By: Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justice M.R. Shah.
Place Of Incident: India.
Judgment Date: 07-12-2018.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: Union of India & Ors vs Col. (TS) P.D. Poone Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 07-12-2018.pdf
Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment
See all petitions in Pension and Gratuity
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in settled
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments
See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
