UNION OF INDIA & Ors. v. V. R. NANUKUTTAN NAIR

Judgment

78 A B C D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R. 78 [2019] 14 S.C.R. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. V. R. NANUKUTTAN NAIR (Civil Appeal Nos. 4714-4715 of 2012) NOVEMBER 07, 2019 [L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.] Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964 – Regulations 78, 101, 101A, 101B, 105B & 107 – Grant of service element of disability pension when released on account of completion of engagement but, not qualifying service for pension – Applicant, in low medical category since 1970, was discharged after completion of 10 years, 169 days of service but, did not complete the qualifying service of 15 years for pension in terms of Regulation 78 – Granted disability pension @50% on account of suffering from Viral Myocarditis post discharge, but was denied the benefit of service element of disability pension –Tribunal held the applicant entitled to full disability pension including the service element – Held: In terms of Regulations, individuals who are invalided out of service on account of disability for the reason that no alternative employment suitable to their low medical category or an individual who at the time of his release under the Release Regulations is in lower medical category, are entitled to disability pension – Clause 1 & 2 of Regulation 105B, relied by the appellants, are applicable to sailors who discharged from service on completion of the period of engagement and have earned only service gratuity in terms of Clause (3) of the said Regulation– Clause 1 pertains to the grant of service pension in addition to the disability element– Therefore, in terms of Clause 3, service element would be payable to an individual who has been paid service gratuity –Purpose of Regulation 105B is to exclude dual payment of the service element of disability pension, when an individual is entitled to service pension as well – Regulation 105B has not used the expression ‘on completion of qualifying service’ – Interpretation as argued by the appellants leads to addition of words in Regulation 105B which is not permissible as the Regulations have to be interpreted harmoniously and not by adding words to it– A person who has completed the period of engagement is entitled to 78 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. V. R. NANUKUTTAN NAIR 79 disability element apart from service pension – Expression ‘service pension’ admissible is not restricted to the qualifying service provided u/Regulation 78 – Regulation 78 cannot be read into Regulation 105B when no such qualification is provided in Regulation 105B – Interpretation advancing the object of the grant of disability needs to be accepted being beneficial provision for class of individuals who suffered disability in the course of duty – Regulation 107 deals with quantification of disability pension in the cases of an individual, who has not completed qualification service– In cases where the disability was suffered while flying or parachute jumping, the minimum service pension is appropriate to his rank and group but in all other cases, the service pension is restricted to minimum of two-thirds of the minimum service pension –For such reason, the disability element would be in addition to the service pension by cumulative reading of Regulation 78, Regulation 105B and Regulation 107 – Service pension to be assessed on the basis of the minimum service pension laid down for an able individual of the same group in Regulation 107 –Appellants to pay the arrears of service element in terms of directions of the Tribunal– Interpretation of Statutes – Rules of – Harmonious Construction; Casus Omissus – Service Law. Interpretation of Statutes – Rules of – Harmonious Construction – Held: Court should construct the provisions harmoniously having regard to the context and the object of the statute in which a provision appears, to make it meaningful – An attempt must always be made so to reconcile the relevant provisions, so as to advance the remedy intended by the statute. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 The disability pension has two elements: disability element and the service element. The disability element is in relation to the extent of disability suffered by an individual whereas the service element is to be granted keeping in view of rules and regulations. Service pension and service element are synonymous. The expression service element is used in the case of payment of disability pension whereas, service pension is used for the pension payable on account of services rendered. No merit found in the argument that as per Clause (1) of Regulation 105B, Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964, the service element is A B C D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R. admissible only if the following conditions are satisfied: (i) That discharge was on account of disability attributable to or aggravated by Naval Service. (ii) The individual is entitled to service pension only on completion of 15 years of service in terms of Regulation 78. In terms of Regulation 101A of the Regulations, an individual who is placed in lower medical category and is discharged because no alternative employment suitable to his low medical category and an individual who at the time of his release under the Release Regulations is in a lower medical category than that in which he was recruited will be treated as invalided from service in terms of Clause 2 of Appendix V of the Regulations. Therefore, in terms of such Regulations, individuals who are invalided out of service on account of disability for the reason that no alternative employment suitable to their low medical category or an individual who at the time of his release under the Release Regulations is in a lower medical category, are entitled to disability pension. [Paras 11, 13 and 14] [88-E’ F-H; 89-A-C]

1.2 Clause 1 and 2 of Regulation 105B are applicable to sailors who are discharged from service on completion of the period of engagement and who have earned only a service gratuity in terms of Clause (3) of the said Regulation. Clause 1 pertain to the grant of service pension in addition to the disability element. Therefore, in terms of Clause 3, service element would be payable to an individual who has been paid service gratuity. The purpose of the Regulation 105B is to exclude dual payment of the service element of disability pension, when an individual is entitled to service pension as well. In the absence of such Regulation, an individual would be entitled to disability pension including the service pension. Therefore, the service element cannot be granted again as part of disability pension. It is to avoid the payment of service element twice over. The Regulation 105B has not used the expression ‘on completion of qualifying service’. The interpretation as argued by the learned ASG leads to addition of words in Regulation 105B which is not permissible as the Regulations have to be interpreted harmoniously and not by adding words to the Regulations. A person who has completed the period of engagement is entitled to disability element apart 80 A B C D E F G H UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. V. R. NANUKUTTAN NAIR 81 from service pension. The expression ‘service pension’ admissible is not restricted to the qualifying service provided under Regulation 78. It is not for the Courts to remedy the defect in the Statute. [Paras 15, 16] [89-D-H]

1.3 By judicial interpretation, words cannot be added to a statute, which would include the Rules, Regulations and Instructions issued under a Statute, as an excuse to give effect to its plain meaning of the language of the regulations. If the legislature has left a lacuna, it is not open to the Court to fill it on some presumed intention of the legislature. But where the Courts find that the words appear to have been accidentally omitted, or if adopting a construction deprives certain existing words of all meaning, it is permissible to supply additional words but should not easily read words which have not been expressly enacted. The Court should construct the provisions harmoniously having regard to the context and the object of the statute in which a provision appears, to make it meaningful. An attempt must always be made so to reconcile the relevant provisions, so as to advance the remedy intended by the statute. Thus, it is not possible to read completion of qualifying service in Regulation 105B of the Regulations. In view of the principles of interpretation relating to Casus Omissus, a reading of the Regulations does not lead to an inference that the service element should be limited to an individual who has completed minimum 15 years of engagement. Regulation 78 cannot be read into Regulation 105B when no such qualification is provided in Regulation 105B. Still further, the Regulation 107 providing service element in the event of an individual who has not completed the qualifying service will become otiose. A reading of all the regulations harmoniously and keeping in view the object of grant of disability pension, the interpretation which advances the object and purpose of the grant of disability needs to be accepted being a beneficial provision for a class of individuals who have suffered disability in the course of duty. The quantification of disability pension in the cases of an individual, who has not completed qualification service is dealt with in Regulation 107. Sub-clause (b) comes into play where the individual has not rendered sufficient service to qualify for A B C D E F G H 82 A B C D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R. service pension. In cases where the disability was suffered while flying or parachute jumping, the minimum service pension is appropriate to his rank and group but in all other cases, the service pension is restricted to minimum of two-thirds of the minimum service pension. For such reason, the disability element would be in addition to the service pension by cumulative reading of Regulation 78, Regulation 105B and Regulation 107 of the Regulations. The service pension is to be assessed on the basis of the minimum service pension laid down for an able individual of the same group in Regulation 107 of the Regulations. The appellants shall pay the arrears of service element preferably within a period of four months from today in terms of directions issued by the Tribunal. [Paras 18-21and 23] [92-F-H; 93-A-G; 94-C] T.S. Das & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. (2017) 4 SCC 218 : [2016] 6 SCR 541– distinguished.