NDLI: Union of India & Ors. Vs. V. R. Nanukuttan Nair

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Navy (Pension) Regulations Harmonious Construction 101A Rules of 101B 1964 Regulations 78 101 105B & 107 Interpretation of Statutes
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	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 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.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Neutral Citation	2019 INSC 1220
Petitioner	Union Of India & Ors.
Respondent	V. R. Nanukuttan Nair
SCR	[2019] 14 S.C.R. 78
Judgement Date	2019-11-07
Case Number	4714

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Union of India & Ors. Vs. V. R. Nanukuttan Nair

Please Log-in to view this content

Ex Navy Direct Entry Artificers Association & Ors. Vs. The Union of India & Ors.

Kandla Export Corporation & Anr. Vs. M/s Oci Corporation & Anr.

The State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Shankar Baburao Kangralkar & Anr.

A.n. Sehgal and Ors. Vs. Raje Ram Sheoran and Ors

T.s. Das and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Anr.

Union of India & Anr. Vs. Surender Singh Parmar

Controller of Defence Accounts (pension) and Ors. Vs. S. Balachandran Nair

The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Trilok Ram

Government of India and Ors. Vs. Indian Tobacco Association

Union of India & Ors. Vs. V. R. Nanukuttan Nair

Union of India & Ors. Vs. V. R. Nanukuttan Nair

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Ex Navy Direct Entry Artificers Association & Ors. Vs. The Union of India & Ors.

Kandla Export Corporation & Anr. Vs. M/s Oci Corporation & Anr.

The State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Shankar Baburao Kangralkar & Anr.

A.n. Sehgal and Ors. Vs. Raje Ram Sheoran and Ors

T.s. Das and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Anr.

Union of India & Anr. Vs. Surender Singh Parmar

Controller of Defence Accounts (pension) and Ors. Vs. S. Balachandran Nair

The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Trilok Ram

Government of India and Ors. Vs. Indian Tobacco Association

Union of India & Ors. Vs. V. R. Nanukuttan Nair