Instances when Pension Claims are Accepted or Rejected

Accepted Rejected

Jai Bhagwan vs. Union of India & Ors

Filed Under: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulation, Rule 10 of the Leave Rules
Appellant: Jai Bhagwan
Respondent: Union of India & Ors
Citation: 121 (2005) Delhi Law Times 505 (DB)
Court: In the High Court of Delhi
Judges: Dr. Mukundakam Sharma and Gita Mittal

This is a case in which Jai Bhagwan acquired a disability while he was on leave and was thus discharged from service. He then made a claim to the disability pension.

Facts

Jai Bhagwan was enrolled in the Corps of Engineers and about a year later he was granted casual leave for a period of about five days. While coming to rejoin his duties after the expiry of the leave period he met with an accident.

Due to this accident he was treated in a hospital and was later placed in the CEE (permanent), Medical category. Thereafter he was issued a notice directing him to explain why he should not be discharged from service.

Subsequently he was issued an order of discharge from service under Army Rule 13(III) (V) with 35% disability. His claim of disability pension was rejected and against this he filed an appeal, which was also dismissed by the Indian Army.

Thereafter Jai filed a writ petition in the High Court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it was held that the Court could not strike the order of his discharge.

However, the Court held that his case should be considered for sheltered employment by the Indian Army as per the terms of the provisions of the Army Order 46/1980. However, the Army did not inform Jai about the reconsideration of his case for sheltered appointment.

Consequently, Jai filed this petition. In this petition, he prayed that the order of his discharge be quashed and he should be reinstated in service or given sheltered appointment. He also had an alternative request for a direction to be given to the Indian Army to give him disability pension at 35% with effect from the date of his discharge.

Observations of the Court

The Court held that since the request for sheltered appointment had been rejected by the Army, the Court could not reopen the matter and it was not possible for the Court to direct the Army to reinstate him after an interval of six years. However, the Court took up the request for grant of disability pension for consideration.

The Court then examined the provisions of Rule 10 of the Leave Rules and Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations. The pension rules provided that if an injury was sustained during the course of employment and while on duty and that disability was assessed to be more than 20%, then the individual would be entitled to a grant of disability pension. The Court held that with respect to this regulation, Jai satisfied one of the requirements since he had a disability of more than 30%.

According to the Court, the only other criterion that he had to satisfy and prove was that the injury had been sustained by him during the course of his employment. In relation to this point the Court referred to previous judgments made by the Supreme Court.

In one such case the Supreme Court had concluded that an Army Personnel on casual leave should be treated as being on duty. Accordingly, the Court was satisfied that Jai fulfilled both the conditions mentioned in the regulation.

The Court directed the Indian Army to pay disability pension at 50% to Jai from the date of his discharge. The Court also directed that he should be paid all the arrears of the pension within a period of two months. It was also held that he should receive pension for the future months of his life at this rate.

Sections Referred

  • Article 226, Constitution of India, 1955

Cases Referred

  • Madan Singh Shekhawat vs. UOI & Ors, VII (1999) SLT 37: AIR 1999 SC 3378
  • Joginder Singh vs. UOI, 1996 (2) SLR 149

Top

Union of India vs. Neki Ram

Filed Under: Army Act, 1950
Appellant: Union of India
Respondent: Neki Ram
Citation: AIR 2004 S.C. 1235
Court: In the Supreme Court of India
Judges: S. Rajendra Babu and Doraiswamy Raju

Facts

Neki Ram was enrolled as a Nursing Assistant in the Medical Corps. He was put into the AYE category. After his enrollment; he completed his course at various training centers.

When he was undergoing the advance course in training at the Military Hospital in Delhi, he suffered from a disease, which was diagnosed as "moya-moya." He was sent to the Medical Board for examination and they declared him to be permanently disabled to the degree of 60%.

Subsequently he was discharged on the recommendation of the Medical Board. Neki applied for disability pension but his claim was rejected on the basis that this disease was not attributed or aggravated due to Military service.

Neki filed an appeal in the Trial Court challenging the order of the Indian Army rejecting his claim for disability pension. The Trial Court examined this case from various angles and concluded that Neki had been hale and hearty at the time he joined the service and developed this disease during service.

The Trial Court also pointed out that no evidence had been placed on record to contradict this point. Based on these facts, the Trial Court allowed the appeal. The UOI then filed an appeal against this order of the Trial Court at the first appellate Court and then at the High Court. These Courts also upheld the order of the Trial Court. Therefore, the UOI filed the present appeal.

UOI's lawyer relied on a previous case and contended that in the absence of proof of injury or the illness developing or getting aggravated due to Military service, there could not be a decree to pay disability pension to Neki.

Observations of the Court

The Court held that the previous case referred to by UOI's lawyer was not relevant. The Court also pointed out that the Trial Court and the first Appellate Court had arrived at the judgment on the basis of the facts of the case. According to the Court when the trial Court, first Appellate Court and the High Court had concluded the same thing, it did not see the need to interfere with their orders. The appeal was dismissed accordingly.Sections Referred

Cases Referred

  • Union of India vs. Baljit Singh, (1996) 11 SCC 315: (1997) 1 SCT 386

Top

Gurnam Singh vs. Union of India and Ors

Filed Under: Army Act, 1950
Appellant: Gurnam Singh
Respondent: Union of India and Ors
Citation: 1992 Lab I.C. 1594
Court: In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
Judge: Jawahar Lal Gupta

Gurnam Singh filed an appeal against the decision of the Army to not grant him disability pension.

Facts

Gurnam Singh was enrolled as a Sepoy in the Indian Army. While he was in service he got epileptic fits and as a result he was discharged. He then made repeated representations for the grant of disability pension. His claim was however rejected by the Army. As a consequence he filed this petition.

The Indian Army submitted a written statement and raised the plea that epilepsy could not be attributed to the service in Army and so disability pension could not be granted to him. UOI's lawyer also claimed that since Gurnam had made an appeal to the Court after a lot of delay, his appeal should not be taken seriously.

Observations of the Court

According to the court, the preliminary objection raised by UOI's lawyer regarding the delay of Gurnam's appeal did not have much merit. With respect to the contention that epilepsy was not cause by military service, the Court referred to the provisions under Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961.

According to the Court it had been clearly mentioned that a disease, which lead to an individual's discharge from service, would be considered attributable to the military service if it was not present at the time of the recruitment of that person.

Therefore, the Court stated that since there was no evidence to show that Gurnam had suffered from epilepsy at the time of his recruitment, it would have to be assumed that this disease was attributable to the military.

Consequently, the writ petition was allowed. It was held that Gurnam was entitled to the grant of disability pension. It was also stated that the payment of arrears of pension would be confined to a period of 3 years starting from the time he had filed the appeal.

Top

Bhagwant Singh vs. Union of India, Ministry of Defense

Filed Under: Articles 31, 226 and 311 of the Constitution of India, 1950
Appellant: Bhagwant Singh S/o Nanak Singh
Respondent: Union of India, Ministry of Defense
Citation: AIR 1962 Punjab 503 (V 49 C 144)
Court: The High Court of Punjab at Delhi
Judges: Shamsher Bahadur

This is a case in which Bhagwant Singh's disability pension was cancelled by the Army on grounds of re-assessment of his disability.

Facts

Bhagwant Singh was serving as a civilian clerk with the rank of a Subedar in the Army. While he was in service, he got diabetes, which necessitated his reparation from Singapore to India. He was sent to a board of medical specialists and was declared unfit for service. The medical board took the view that his disability had been aggravated by the war service. Furthermore, his disablement was assessed to be at 50%; "incapable of improvement".

On this basis he was granted a provisional pension, which was later, made a permanent disability pension. The amount was reduced to some extent when the pension was made permanent. He was also given employment in the Delhi Ordinance Department for some years.

After a period of about 8 years, he was informed that the pension granted to him was cancelled. It was explained that the board had re-assessed his disablement at 20% and this disentitled him to any pension. Moreover, it was stated that his disability was not aggravated by war service.

Bhagwant then filed the present petition on the ground that his right to hold pension had been interfered with without a just cause. The revised Army instructions stated that a disability pension could be modified if on the result of a further medical examination of the individual it was found that the disability had reduced or had disappeared or the person had become capable of improvement.

Bhagwant pointed out that these revised instructions were not applicable to his case. According to him the pension granted to him for life could not be subsequently revised even under the amended Army instructions.

The lawyer on behalf of UOI contended that there was no statutory right to receive pension. It was further argued that the disability pension had been granted to Bhagwant under a mistake, which had later been rectified by the second medical board.

Observation of the Court

After analyzing the arguments extended by both the parties and the relevant Articles of the Constitution of India, the Court opined that there was no justification for the action taken by the Indian Army. It was further observed that Bhagwant had not been given a show cause notice before this decision was taken.

The Court also observed that the argument extended by the UOI that the disability pension was granted by mistake was not a valid argument. The Court further pointed out that Bhagwant had enjoyed the pension for many years and a very serious interference had been made with his right.

Accordingly, the order of cancellation of pension was set aside and Bhagwant was granted the costs of the proceedings. The petition was thereby allowed.

Sections Referred

  • Articles 226 and 311 of the Constitution of India, 1950

Cases Referred

  • Basheshar Nath vs. Commr. Of Income Tax, Delhi and Rajasthan ('59) AIR 1959 SC 149 (V 46): 1959 Supp (1) SCR 528
  • Eshugbayi Eleko vs. Officer Administering Govt. of Nigeria ('31) AIR 1931 PC 248 (V 18): 61 Mad LJ 975, Cri LJ 1069
  • K Venkataramaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh ('60) AIR 1960 Andh Pra 420 (V 47): 1960
  • Huggins, In re Huggins (1882) 21 Ch D 85: 51 LJ Ch 935

Top

Ravi Dutt vs. Union of India and Ors

Filed Under: Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Appellant: Ravi Dutt
Respondent: Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 1999 (48) DRJ 376; 76 (1998) DLT 429
Court: In the High Court of Delhi
Judges: Devinder Gupta and K. Ramamoorthy

Ravi Dutt filed an appeal against the decision of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) to not grant him disability pension.

Facts

Ravi Dutt was enrolled in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF); while he was posted in Jammu he went on a sick leave after which he started complaining about loss of hearing. He was sent to the station hospital at Jammu and was declared temporarily unfit. He was referred to the Base Hospital in Delhi for further treatment.

After due examination and treatment, the Chief Medical officer referred him to the RML Hospital and AIIMS for specialized treatment. Ultimately, the CMO of the Base Hospital opined that he was unfit for further service at CRPF.

Thereafter, Ravi's case was initiated for invalidation. After the medical examination he was declared completely and permanently unfit for service of any kind in his department.

Ravi went to another hospital and a Board of three doctors declared his disability as 100%. His main contention was that despite various representations, he was not allowed disability pension, merely on the ground that the Board of Officers had not declared his disability as 100%. His claim was rejected by the CRPF. Challenging this order he filed this petition on the grounds that he had been illegally deprived of the disability pension.

In response to this, the CRPF took the stand that Ravi had been invalidated outside of the service and that the Medical Board had declared him to be completely and permanently incapacitated for further service of any kind. However, it was argued that the Board had not certified him to be 100% disabled and disability pension was available only to such candidates.

Furthermore, it was claimed that he had never been advised/directed to appear before the Medical Board of another hospital. It was also argued that he had submitted only a photocopy of the disability certificate signed by the three doctors of the other hospital, but had failed to submit the original certificate. And because of all that he had not been allowed the disability pension.

Observations of the Court

After examining the relevant arguments, the Court held that CRPF's act in denying disability pension to Ravi was wholly unjustified and illegal. The Court then went on to analyze the relevant certificates and orders that had been issued to Ravi by the CRPF as well as the other hospital.

The Court pointed out that his services at the CRPF had been terminated on account of 100% Bilateral Senso Neural Hearing Loss and the CRPF had not disputed the correctness of that certificate. The Court felt that denying disability pension to him on the grounds that the Medical Board had not certified his disability as being 100% was not justified.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and declared that CRPF's action was unjust. The Court held that Ravi was entitled to disability pension in accordance with the law from the date of his discharge.

It was also stated that the amount of arrears due to him would have to be worked out and paid to him within a period of 3 months along with an interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the amount of arrears, due and payable to him.

Sections Referred

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Top

Mahavir Singh Narwal vs Union of India

Filed under: Article 226 of the Constitution of India Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations
Appellant: Mahavir Singh Narwal
Respondent: Union of India and Another
Citation: 2004 V AD (Delhi) 189
Court: In the High Court of Delhi
Judges: Vijender Jain and HR Malhotr

Mahavir Singh Narwal, despite his disability being attributed to military service was denied his claim to disability pension because he had sought discharge on compassionate ground. Aggrieved, Mahavir filed this Writ Petition.

Facts

Mahavir Singh Narwal was enrolled in the Indian Army in the Jat Regiment. He became a victim of douodenal ulcers due to the stress and strain of military service and was placed in the temporary low medical category CEE for six months. Because of this ailment he applied for discharge from Army on compassionate grounds after completion of 12 years of his service.

According to Mahavir, he was brought before the Release Medical Board for examination. After his medical examination, the Board downgraded him to medical category CEE permanent and evaluated his disability at 30%. It was also stated that the disability had been aggravated by stress of military service. The Jat Regimental Center recommended the grant of disability pension to Mahavir in a letter dated 30th April 1979. However, he was not granted the disability pension and he filed this petition praying that the UOI should be directed to grant him disability pension from the day he was discharged from service.

Arguments made on behalf of Mahavir

Mahavir's lawyer contended that when he had applied for discharge, he was in temporary low medical category. He was also examined by the Medical Board and was found to be in permanent low medical category with 30% disability attributable to military service. Mahavir's case was resubmitted for consideration to C.D.A (P) Allahabad.

Arguments made on behalf of UOI and the Army

On the other hand, UOI and the Army's lawyer contended that Mahavir was not entitled to disability pension because he had sought discharge on compassionate ground-that there was no male member at home to look after his property and household affairs. The lawyer also referred to Rule 173 of the Disability Pension Regulation, which stated that unless otherwise specifically stated, a disability pension may be granted to an individual who was invalidated from service on account of disability which was attributable or aggravated by the military service and was assessed at 20% or over. On the basis of these provisions it was contended that since Mahavir was not invalidated from service on account of his disability but had asked to be discharged on his own, he was not entitled to disability pension.

Observations of the Court

The Court carefully examined the arguments advanced by both the parties. The Court held that the main question under consideration was whether on account of seeking discharge on compassionate ground Mahavir would loose his right to claim disability pension even though his disability had been attributable and aggravated on account of military service.

The Court then examined the relevant rules and provisions of the Army and held that it was quite clear that invalidation from service was a necessary condition for the grant of disability pension. However, the Court pointed out that according to the rules once an individual was placed in the low medical category he would be treated as invalidated from service. The Court further held that since Mahavir was placed in the low medical category, he was entitled to the grant of disability pension.

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and the UOI was directed to grant disability pension to Mahavir on the basis of his assessment of 30% disability as opined by the Release Medical Board. For future disability pension the UOI could conduct another medical board examination to assess Mahavir's percentage of disability. It was further directed that the arrears of disability pension would be paid to Mahavir within a period of 8 weeks. If this was not done then he would be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% on the amount of arrears. With these directions the writ petition was allowed.

Sections Referred

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Cases Referred

  • Ex Subedar Baljor Singh vs. Union of India, SLR 1996 Vol. 6, page 142

Top

Jai Bhagwan Rohilla vs. Chief of the Air Staff & Anr

Filed under: Article 226 of the Constitution of India Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations of Army, 1961
Appellant: Jai Bhagwan Rohilla
Respondent: Chief of the Air Staff & Anr
Citation: 83 (2000) Delhi Law Times 109
Court: In the High Court of Delhi
Judge: NG Nandi

This is an appeal filed by Jai Bhagwan Rohilla for the claim of disability pension which was not granted to him even though he was discharged from the his duties in the India Air Force on grounds of ill health.

Facts

Jai Bhagwan Rohilla was selected as an Airman for the Indian Air Force in the year 1983. At the time of his recruitment in to the military service, no note was made that he was suffering from any disease. He served the Indian Air Force for about 5 1/2 years. He was posted at Kalaikunda in West Bengal, could not acclimatize to the climate, and developed constipation. Because of that, he was hospitalized for about one year.

Various tests were carried out on him and he was found to be suffering from Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus. Thereafter he was discharged from service on grounds of ill health. However, he was not granted disability pension at the time of discharge. Thus, Jai made a representation to the Air Force Authority for grant of disability pension but this plea was rejected. He then filed this appeal.

In response to this appeal, the Chief of Air Staff filed a counter-affidavit and submitted that Jai had been medically boarded out by a duly constituted Invalidating Medical Board. The Board had assessed his disability to be at 60% for one year and had opined that Jai's disability was neither attributable nor aggravated by his Air Force service.

Arguments on behalf of Jai Bhagwan

Jai's lawyer contended that at the time of Jai's entry in Air Force, there was no note made of the fact that he was suffering from any such disease and he had developed diabetes while he was in service. The lawyer also submitted several previous judgments of a similar nature in order to support his contentions.

Observations of the Court

The Court examined the relevant provisions of the Pension Regulations of the Army and referred to similar previous judgment of the Supreme Court. According to the Court when Jai had joined the Air Force no note had been made of this disease and therefore this disease would have arisen during the Air Force Service. In light of these circumstances, the Court held that the decision taken by the Chief of Staff of not granting disability pension to Jai was arbitrary and liable to be quashed.

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed. The Chief of Air Staff was directed to sanction disability pension to Jai as 60% for one year as assessed by the Invalidating Board. This would be continued until the disability level varied on re-assessment done by a properly constituted Medical Board. The Court further held that arrears would also be paid to Jai along with a cost of Rs. 5000/-.

Sections Referred

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Cases Referred

  • Ex. Hav Sinder Pal Singh vs. Union of India & Another, 1995 (5) S.L.R pg 459
  • Deepak Kumar Singh vs. Union of India & others, 68 (1997) DLT pg 788
  • Ex. Sapper Mohinder

Top

Madan Singh Shekhawat vs. Union of India and Others

Filed under: Section 192 of the Army Act Rr. 48 and 10 of the Defense Service Regulations
Appellant: Madan Singh Shekhawat
Respondent: Union of India and Others
Citation: AIR 1999 SC 3378
Court: In the Supreme Court
Judges: SP Bharucha and N Santosh Hegde

Facts

Madan Singh Shekhawat joined the Indian Army as a Sawar (horse rider). He had completed 11 years and six months of service when he was discharged from the Army on medical grounds. The cause of his discharge arose from an accident in which Madan was involved while alighting from a train. Consequently, his right arm was amputated. At the time of the accident, he was on authorized casual leave.

On discharge from service, he put forth a claim for the grant of disability pension. This claim was recommended by the higher authorities but was rejected by the Controller of Defense Accounts (Pension), Allahabad solely on the ground that at the time of the accident, he was not on Military duty. His representations for the grant of disability pension were thus rejected. He then approached the Single Judge of the High Court by way of a Writ Petition. This Petition was dismissed on the ground that at the time of the accident, Madan was traveling at his own expenses and was thus not entitled to the grant of disability pension.

He then appealed to the Division bench but there too his appeal was dismissed on the same ground. Madan then filed this appeal.

Observations of the Court

The Court examined the rules that govern the grant of disability pension. According to one of the Army rules-when an Army personnel is on causal leave it was counted as duty unless he came under any one of the exceptions stated under Rule 11(a) of the rules. Since Madan did not come under any of these exceptions, he was on duty at the time of the accident. One of the rules also stated that a person was considered to be on duty when proceeding to his leave station or returning to duty from his leave station at the public expense.

The Court observed that the controversy in this case was whether the qualification, "at public expense", was so mandatory as to deprive an Army personnel who was traveling from or to his leave station at his own expense, of the benefit of disability pension. The Court held that this provision, a beneficial provision, should be interpreted liberally so as to give it a wider meaning rather than a restrictive meaning that would negate the very object of the rule.

The Court was of the opinion that the rule-makers did not intend to deprive Army personnels of the benefit of the disability pension solely on the ground that the cost of the journey was not borne by the public ex-chequer. If the journey was authorized it would make no difference whether the fare came from the Army personnel himself or the public exchequer. The Court held that since on the day of the accident Madan was on an authorized leave, he was entitled to the benefit of disability pension as provided under rules.

For these reasons, the appeal was allowed and the judgments given by the High Court were set aside.

Cases Referred

  • Hameedia Hardware Stores v. B. Mohan Lal Sowcar, AIR 1988 SC: 1060: (1988) 2 SCC 513
  • Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa, AIR 1978 SC 548: (1978) 3 SCR 207: 1978 Lab IC 467
  • M. Pentiah v. Muddala Veeramallappa, AIR 1961 SC 1107: (1961) 2 SCR 295
  • Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher (1949) 2 All ER 155: 65 TLR 379: (1949) 2 KB 481

Top

Satpal Singh vs. Union of India and Ors

Filed under: Article 226 of the Constitution of India Para 173 of the Army Regulations
Appellant: Satpal Singh
Respondent: Union of India and Ors
Citation: 79 (1999) Delhi Law Times 576 (DB)
Court: In the High Court of Delhi
Judge: Usha Mehra and SN Kapoor

Facts

Satpal Singh was enrolled as a combatant soldier in the Army in the year 1982. He underwent a complete medical check up at the time of his enrolment as prescribed under the military rules and was not found to be suffering from any kind of disease.

After enrolment Satpal underwent training and other activities in peaceful areas as well as the forward areas. In the year 1990 he developed a mental problem because of which he was admitted in the Military Hospital. On account of his mental ailment he was placed in the permanent low medical category and was recommended for a Medical Board examination.

The Medical Board assessed his disability element as being above 20% and recommended his invalidation from service. His Commanding Officer sanctioned the discharge and recommended disability pension. However, the Controller of Defense Accounts (Pension), Allahabad rejected the military pension claim made by Satpal on the ground that his disability, because of which he was invalidated from service, was neither attributable nor aggravated by military service.

Satpal made several representations against the rejection of disability pension but they were also rejected. He then filed this appeal seeking direction against the Army for grant of disability pension.

In response to this the Indian Army argued that as per the record Satpal had suffered from psychiatric disorder way back in 1982. He was admitted in the Military hospital for treatment of a disease called "Agnevul Garis". In the year 1989 he suffered from another disease called "Myalgia". In the year 1990 he suffered from "Neurosis" and was finally diagnosed with schizophrenia.

It was then recommended that he should be invalidated out of service. The Invaliding Medical Board examined Satpal and opined that the disease from which he suffered, i.e. schizophrenia was neither attributable nor aggravated by military service. The Medical board assessed his disability at 40% for two years.

Observations of the Court

According to the Court the main point for consideration was whether the disease suffered by Satpal, i.e. schizophrenia was due to his military service or got aggravated because of his service. The Indian Army relied upon the opinion of the Medical Board, which held that Satpal's illness was constitutional in nature. However, the Court pointed out that the Board had not given any reasons for arriving at this opinion. The Court examined the medical report submitted by the Board and held that the disability pension claim made by Satpal could not be rejected on the basis of such a vague medical report.

The Court examined the record and pointed out that when Satpal had joined the Army he was not suffering from any disease. The Court further held that in the counter-affidavit filed by the Indian army, it was mentioned that Satpal had been hospitalized on account of a disease called "Agnevul Garis." However, in the medical dictionaries there was no such disease.

According to the Court it appeared that the name of the disease had been wrongly typed. The disease could be "Acnevul Garis" which was a skin disease. This disease could in no way be associated with mental disorder. Furthermore, the disease "Myalgia" also was not related to mental disorder and referred to muscular pain.

The Court held that Satpal had been posted in the non-family area of Jammu and and at the time insurgency in the state thus, which led to the aggravation of his mental condition. The Court also analyzed the literature on schizophrenia and held that it could not be said that the disease on account of which Satpal was invalidated out of service was neither attributable to military service nor aggravated because of the service.

In light of these reasons the Court quashed the order of rejection of disability pension with special cost of Rs. 5000/- in favor of Satpal. The Court held that Satpal was entitled to disability pension with effect from 6th July 1991 as recommended by the Commanding Officer. Arrears of disability pension were to be worked out and paid to him within a period of 6 months. The Writ Petition was accordingly allowed.

Sections Referred

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Top

A. Ananthan vs. the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., & Others

Filed under: Section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
The Persons with Disabilities Act 1995
Consumer Protection Act
Payment of Bonus Act
Employees Provident Funds Act
Section 33 of the India Medical Council Act, 1956
Article 14 of the Constitution of India
Appellant: A. Ananthan
Respondent: The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
The President, Annai Sathiya Transport Corporation Employees’ Provident Fund Trust,
The Administrator, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employee’s Pension Fund Trust and
the State of Tamil Nadu, rep. its Secy. to govt., Finance (Pension) Dept.
Citation: Writ Petition No. 2224 of 2003
Court: In the High Court of Madras
Judge: F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla

Facts

Ananthan was initially selected as a Trainee Conductor in M/s. Annai Transport Corporation Ltd. and was subsequently appointed as a daily paid Conductor. He was declared medically unfit to work as a Conductor and was discharged from service on medical grounds from 26.11.1992. As on that date, he had put in 13 years, 8 months and 17 days of service and the qualifying service was ascertained as 6 years, 10 months and 6 days. On that basis, he was paid Rs. 7,303 as service gratuity and provident fund accumulation to the tune of Rs. 13,778. He prayed for alternate employment by relying upon G.O. Ms. No. 746.

His request was considered and was reappointed as a ‘fresh entrant’ in the post of helper, in the regular time scale of pay with effect from 10.9.1993, after signing a settlement reached under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Subsequently, due to his physical disability, he applied for either VRS or discharge on medical grounds. His request was considered and he was discharged on medical grounds by paying one month’s wages in lieu of notice.

He was 56 years, 9 months and 2 days of age then. As between the date of his re-appointment, he had lost 7 years, 7 months and 7 days, of which the qualifying service was determined as 3 years, 1 month and 14 days. On that basis, his service benefits were calculated and Provident Fund Accumulation, Service Gratuity under Pension Scheme, service Gratuity under normal Gratuity Rules and refund in the Post Retirement Benefit Scheme were paid.

When he applied for commutation of pension under the NTSTC Employees Pension Fund Rules, he was informed that since he had put in only about 3 ½ years of qualifying service, he was not eligible for payment of pension. It was explained that as per the rules, in order to be eligible for payment of pension, an employee should have put in 10 years of qualifying service. Aggrieved by the given circumstances Ananthan filed the present Writ Petition in the High Court of Madras.

Arguments made on behalf of Ananthan

It was argued on behalf of Ananthan that the Pension Rules came into effect on and from 1.9.1998, when he was in service, hence he was governed by the said Rules and by virtue of Rule 19 (c) of the Rules he was entitled to count his past service for ascertaining the qualifying service. It was contended that if his past service was considered, he would definitely satisfy the requirement of minimum of 10 years of qualifying service in order to be eligible for pension.

Arguments made on behalf of the Transport Corporation

It was argued on behalf of the Corporation that Ananthan was not entitled to pension as his earlier discharge was a different and distinct spell of employment for which, benefits had been duly paid to him. Subsequent employment was a fresh employment as from 10.9.1993 and would alone be considered for pension dues.

It was further argued that when the subsequent fresh employment from 10.9.1993 till his discharge on 17.4.2001 was considered, he having failed to satisfy the requirement of 10 years of qualifying service, was thus ineligible for claiming pension.

It was also contended that fresh employment was given to him who specifically stipulates that such fresh employment under the Government Order would be after settling all the benefits for the past service rendered. It is therefore contended that Ananthan was not entitled for any pension and the order impugned in the Writ Petition should not be interfered with.

Observations of the Court

The Court was of the view that the Pension Rules were brought into force with effect from 1.9.1998 and on that date, Ananthan was in service of the Corporation. Therefore, he was entitled to rely on the provisions contained in the Pension Rules to support his claim for pension. The Court further held that the net qualifying service of Ananthan was 6 years 10 months and 6 days in the earlier spell and 3 years.

Thus, he satisfied the eligibility criteria and since he had reached the age of normal retirement on 15.7.2002, he had been paid the service gratuity under the pension scheme, which was to the extent of Rs.12, 880. The Court also held that while the provident fund accumulations and service gratuity under the gratuity rules would be payable irrespective of the eligibility for payment of pension, Ananthan could not be permitted extra benefits of service gratuity under the pension scheme which was paid to him on the footing that he was not eligible for pension.

Therefore, while setting aside the order impugned in the Writ Petition holding that Ananthan was entitled and eligible for payment of pension under the Pension Rules, the Transport Corporation was directed to settle the payment from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition was thus allowed.

Cases Referred:

  • N. Venkataramani vs. Indian bank and Anr., (2005) 2 TLNJ 290
  • State of Karnataka vs. Vishwabharathi House Coop. Society and Ors. 2003 (2) SCC 412
  • Workmen of Messrs Binny Ltd. vs. Management of Binny Ltd. and Anr. 1985 (4) SCC 325
  • The Regional Provident Funds Commissioner Punjab vs. Shibu Mstal Work, AIR 1965 SC 1076
  • Union of India and Anr.vs. Hansoli Devi and Ors. 2002 (7) SCC 273
  • Deokinanadan Prasad vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. 1971 (2) SCC 330
  • Jastha Venkateswara Rao vs. Oggu Chainna Basava Reddy and Ors, 1984 Supp. SCC 399
  • All India Rederve Bank Retired Officers Association and Ors. vs. Union of India Ors., AIR 1992 Sc 767
  • Sayad Mir Ujmuddin Khan vs. Ziaulnisa Begum, (1897) ILR 3 Bombay 422
  • Raghuraj Singh vs. Hari Krishna, AIR 1944 PC 35
  • International Ore and Fertilizers (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation, 1987 (4) SCC 203
  • Workmen of Binny Ltd. vs. Management of Binny Ltd. and Anr. AIR 1986 SC 509
  • Buckingham and Carnatic Co.Ltd. vs. Venkatiah and Anr., AIR 1964 SC 1272
  • N. Priyadharshani and Ors. vs. The Secretary to Govt., education Department and Anr., 2005 (3) CTC 449
  • Andhra Bank vs. B. Satyanarayan, (2004) 2 SCC 657
  • St. Johns Teachers Training Institute vs. Regional Director, (2003) 3 SCC 321
  • Sukdhev Singh Hooda vs. State of Haryana, (2004) 12 SCC 588
  • Union of India vs. Arun Kumar Ray, AIR 1986 SC 737
  • Union of India vs. Madras Telephone SC 7ST Social Welfare Association, (2000) 9 SCC 721
  • Shish Ram vs. State of U.P., (1996) 10 SCC 166; Vijay Singh vs. State of U.P., 2005 LIC 505

Top

Jai Singh vs. Union of India and Ors

Filed under: Article 226 of the Constitution of India Rule 13 (3) (iii) (i) of the Pension Regulations for Army, 1961
Appellant: Jai Singh
Respondent: Union of India and Ors
Citation: 119 (2005) Delhi Law Times 66 (DB)
Court: In the High Court of Delhi
Judge: BA Khan and BN Chaturvedi

Facts

Jai Singh was a sweeper in the Indian Army. At the time of enrollment in 1964 he accepted combatantisation, according to the terms and conditions of the service with terms of engagement of 18 years of service or on attaining 45 years of age, whichever was earlier. In 1977 he was discharged from service on completion of 13 years of service and on attaining the age of 45 years. He had been placed in the low medical category ‘CEE’ (temporary) in 1976.

Later he was brought before a Medical Board and was placed in the medical category ‘CEE’ permanent. His disability ‘Mylagia Back’ was assessed at 33% for two years and he was accordingly awarded disability pension on retirement. However, in the year 1988 his disability pension was stopped by the Controller General of Defense Accounts (CCDA) on the grounds that the Re-survey Medical Board assessed his disability at less than 20%.

This decision was, however, communicated to him only in August 1990. Thereafter he filed an appeal questioning the assessment of his disability as less than 20%. He also requested the Chief of Army Headquarters to hold a Review Medical Board but no action was taken in this regard. He then approached the CCDA but again, no action was taken. He then filed this appeal and contended that the finding of the Resurvey Medical Board was illegal and arbitrary since he was not given a chance to explain his position.

He further submitted that stopping his disability pension without giving him an opportunity to represent his case was against the law. He complained that the Indian army did not convene the Review Medical Board for more than 10 years despite his request. He also contended that even if his disability was assessed at 20% he would still be entitled to the service element of the disability pension according to the relevant Army rules.

The Indian Army filed a counter-affidavit, which stated that because Jai had not completed 15 years of service when he was discharged, he was not entitled to the service element of the disability pension. It was further submitted that the disability pension had been stopped since his disability was assessed at less than 20%.

Observations of the Court

The Court examined the relevant sections of the Army Regulations and held that there was no controversy regarding the fact that the disability suffered by Jai was attributable and aggravated by his military service. The Court also pointed out that in light of the Army regulations, Jai was entitled to disability pension. Regulation 186(2) stated that an individual, even on ceasing to be entitled to the disability element of the disability pension from the date his disability falling below 20%, would continue to draw the service element of the pension.

In light of this, the Court held that CCDA (P) was not justified in denying the service element of the pension to Jai. The Court then took up the matter of non-payment of Jai’s disability pension from February 1988. The Court pointed out that after his disability pension was discontinued, Jai had requested for holding a Review Medical Board and had also submitted a medical certificate, which showed that his disability had in fact substantially increased.

According to the Court in such circumstances, the action on part of the Indian army was not justified. Jai had further submitted that eventually a fresh Resurvey Medical Board was held in July 2002 and the Board re-assessed the degree of his disability at 30%. An amount of Rs. 465 p.m. was then sanctioned to him. According to the Court, since Jai was denied of his legitimate claim, he should be entitled to interest @ 10% p.a. with effect from the 1st of November 1977.

The Court also held that Jai would also be entitled to the disability element of the pension from 1991 to 2002 with interest @10% p.a. the payment of the arrears on both counts should be made within 2 months. The Court also held that Jai would continue to draw the disability and the service element of the pension for life, irrespective of the degree of his disability. Jai was also awarded costs of proceedings quantified at Rs. 25000/-. The petition was accordingly allowed.

Sections Referred:

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Top

Lance Dafadar Joginder Singh vs. Union of India

Filed under: Disability Pension Act
Appellants: Lance Dafadar Joginder Singh
Respondent: Union of India
Citation: 1995 Supp (3) SCC 232
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judge: Kuldeep Singh and B.P.Jevan Reddy

Facts

Joginder Singh was serving as Lance Dafadar in the regular army for more than 17 years as a combatant soldier. While proceeding on the casual leave he met with an accident because of which his leg had to be amputated. He was discharged from the Army and was paid the pension due to him.

Although he was given the Army pension he was denied the disability pension under the Pension Regulations on the ground that the injury was not attributable to military service.

Joginder challenged the same before the Punjab and Harayana High Court, but his petition was dismissed on the ground of delay. Against this, he filed the present appeal in the Supreme Court.

Observations of the Court

The Court held that Joginder being in regular Army, should have been treated as on duty when he was on casual leave and there was no army regulation or rule stating that he was not entitled to disability pension.

As his disability was assessed as 60% he was entitled to disability pension from the date he was discharged from the Army. The Court further held that the Union of India should finalize the disability pension case within 3 months from the receipt of this order.

The appeal was allowed.

Ex- Captan. Jasbir Singh vs. Union of India

Filed under: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950
Appellant: Ex- Capt. Jasbir Singh
Respondent: Union of India
Citation: 2003 III AD (Delhi) 15
Court: In the High Court of Delhi
Judges: Vijender Jain, BN Chaturvedi

Facts

Several Writ Petitions filed for the claim of Disability Pension were heard together and a common order was passed by the Court. According to the petitioners, the disability pension was recommended and certified in their favor. However, the claim for disability pension was rejected by the Chief Controller of Defense Accounts (pension) on the following three grounds:

  • The disability suffered by the petitioners was not attributable to or aggravated by military service.
  • The disability was adjudged at less than 20% on re-assessment of the medical condition, which was carried out without consulting the Medical Board or placing any material before the Chief Controller of Defense Accounts.
  • The petitioners were from the category that had initially been receiving disability pension but it had been discontinued subsequently.

Observations of the Court

The Court referred to a previous judgment passed by the Delhi High Court and in the light of that judgment held that the Union Of India must grant pensions to those in whose favor the medical opinion in terms of AFMS Form-16 had been given and a certificate to that effect had been issued. The Court held that there was no reason why these petitioners should not have been granted disability pension.

It was further stated that in cases where there were strong reasons for coming to a different conclusion from what had been recommended on the AFMS Form-16 by the Competent Authority, the case would have to be examined by a Review Medical Board. In case they also agreed with the opinion of the Medical Advisor, then an opportunity would be granted to the petitioner to plead his case before the appellate authority for the grant of pension.

The Court also took up the argument made by the UOI lawyer that the petition was not filed within the limitation period. The Court held that pension was neither a gratuity nor a bounty given by the UOI. It was an obligation on the part of the UOI and the Army. If it had not been granted then the fault lay with the UOI and therefore no plea of limitation could be entertained in the matter of grant of pension.

The Court also held that where a person was invalidated out of service on account of lowering of his medical category, it was incumbent upon the UOI and the Army to inform the person concerned that he had been invalidated out of service on account of lowering of his medical category. The person also had to be informed about the percentage of disability or disease and the fact that he had the right to make an appropriate appeal to the authority concerned.

In cases where this procedure had not been followed and the employee had been invalidated from service on account of lowering of medical category and the disability was assessed to be more than 20%, then the non-grant of disability pension to such petitioners was wholly illegal and arbitrary. The Court accordingly quashed these orders.

The Court held that with respect to other cases it would have to be determined whether the disability could be attributed to or was aggravated by military service in accordance with Pension Rules, 1961.

The Writ Petitions were accordingly allowed and the UOI was directed to pay the disability pension within a period of four months.

Sections Referred

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Cases Referred

  • Ex-Signalman Shri Bhagwan vs. Union of India &Others, CW. 3869/1993 (Delhi High Court)
  • Ex-Sapper Mohinder Singh vs. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 164/1993, decided on 14th January, 1993 (Delhi High Court)

Top

Union of India and Ors vs. Dhir Singh China Colonel

Filed Under: Section 192 of the Army Act (46 of 1950), Regulation 53 of the Pension Regulations
Appellant: Union of India and Ors.
Respondent: Dhir Singh China Colonel (Retd.)
Citation: AIR 2003 SC 1197
Court: In the Supreme Court of India
Judges: N. Santosh Hegde and B.P. Singh

This is an appeal filed by the UOI against the judgment passed by the High Court in allowing the grant of disability pension to Dhir Singh China.

Facts

Dhir Singh China was commissioned in the Indian Army and he served the Indian Army for many years. He ultimately retired from service holding the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. A few days before his retirement, he suffered a heart attack and had to undergo a heart (by-pass) surgery. He also suffered from Open Angle Glaucoma in both his eyes.

A Medical Board consisting of three members also examined him. The Board found that he was suffering from disability to the extent of 60%. The Medical Board also opined that neither of the diseases suffered by him were either attributable to or aggravated by military service; they were constitutional in nature.

Dhir made a claim for disability pension, which was rejected by the Indian Army. He then filed a writ petition in the High Court against the decision of the Army.

He claimed that in addition to the service pension he was also entitled to disability pension, in accordance with the Rules. According to him he should have been granted the disability pension according to Regulation 53 and Rule 4 of the Entitlement Rules.

According to Regulation 53 an officer who has been retired compulsorily on account of age or completion of tenure was entitled to disability pension if at the time of retirement he was suffering from a disability attributable to or aggravated by the military service.

Rule 4 stated that if an individual was in a lower medical category at the time of his release as compared to the time when he was recruited then it would be deemed that such an individual was handicapped due to service.

The Single Judge accepted Dhir's contention and held that since he had been reduced to the inferior category in the medical chart, it would automatically amount to invalidation and therefore Rule 4 would apply to his case. It was held that Dhir was therefore entitled to disability pension along with the regular service pension.

The Division Bench did not approve the finding regarding Rule 4 of the Judge. However, the Division Bench was of the opinion that in any case Dhir was entitled to the disability pension under Regulation 53.

The Union of India challenged the decision of the High Court and filed this appeal.

Observations of the Court

The Court examined the provisions of Regulation 53 of the Pension Regulations and Rule 4 of the Entitlement Rules and stated that Rule 4 was not applicable to Dhir's case in view of the facts and circumstances. The Court also took into account the fact that the Medical board had stated that Dhir's disability had not been aggravated or caused by the military service.

According to the Court, the provisions of Regulation 53 were also not applicable to the present case since it had been clearly stated in the regulation that the disability had to be either aggravated or caused by the military service.

On account of the following reasons, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order given by the Division Bench.

It was held that Dhir Singh was not entitled to the disability pension under Regulation 53. However, it was also stated that any payment that had been made by way of disability pension to Dhir Singh could not be recovered from him.

Top

Ex-Gunner Hoshiar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors

Filed under: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950
Appellant: Ex-Gunner Hoshiar Singh
Respondent: Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2005 I AD (Delhi) 164
Court: In the High Court of Delhi
Judges: Mukundakam Sharma and Gita Mittal

Facts

Hoshiar Singh was in the medical category AYE at the time of discharge from the Army. He sought premature discharge from service at his own request. After 26 years of discharge, he filed a petition for the grant of service pension or disability pension.

A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the UOI and it was stated that Hoshiar had not completed minimum 15 years of service and had been discharged at his own request. Thus, he was not eligible for either disability pension or service pension.

This case came up for hearing before this Court on a number of occasions and the Court issued a direction to Hoshiar to submit the relevant original documents to support the contentions made by him and stated that if it was not produced, it would be presumed as not existing. The case then came up for the next hearing.

Observations of the Court

When the matter was taken up in the Court, Hoshiar explained his inability to produce the original document and stated that he had lost the original. His lawyer drew attention to the FIR that he had lodged for the lost documents. The Court took into account the fact that the FIR had been lodged after an order was passed by the Court to place the original document on record.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court held that Hoshiar had sought to bring into evidence a record, which did not exist. The Court also cited previous decisions of the Supreme Court that dealt with similar issues. It was held that he was not entitled to disability pension since he was discharged at his own request and not on medical grounds.

The Court also pointed out that the petition had been filed after 26 years of his discharge and this was unwarranted and unexplained delay. Accordingly, the Court found no merit in the petition and the petition was dismissed.

Sections Referred

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India,1950

Cases Referred

  • Satish Khosla vs. M/s Eli Lily Ranbaxy Ltd. & Another, 1998 I AD (Delhi) 927
  • The Chancellor and another vs. Dr. Bijaynanda Kar and others, AIR 1994 SC 579

Top

Controller of Defense Accounts (Pension) and ors vs. S Balachandran Nair

Filed Under: The Regulations for the Medical Service of Armed Forces, 1983 Pension Regulations for the Army
Appellant: Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) and ors Respondent: S Balachandran Nair
Citation: 2005 (7) SCJ 694
Court: In the Supreme Court
Judges: Arijit Pasayat and Dr. AR Lakshmanan
This is an Appeal against the judgment of the Kerala High Court allowing grant of disability pension to S Balachandran Nair.

Facts

S Balachandran Nair joined the Indian Army and from time to time got posted in different regions of India. However, he was neither involved in any actual combat operations nor posted in any Combat area. While he was posted in the border area in Punjab, he developed some medical problems for which he received treatment at the Army Hospital.

He was examined by the Army Medical Board, which found him to be suffering from "Anxiety Neurosis", a constitutional disease, unconnected with service conditions. As a result of this report he was discharged from the Army as he was declared medically unfit for service.

He sought disability pension from the Army, which was not given to him on the ground that his disability could not be attributed to Military service.

He filed a Writ Petition before the Kerala High Court seeking disability pension, which was allowed by the Single Judge.

The Army filed an appeal against the Judgment of the Single Judge before a Higher Bench. The Division Bench also upheld the Judgment of the Single Judge and dismissed the Appeal filed by the Army.

Against the Judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, the Army filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Observations by the Court

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Army Authorities and held that Balachandran was not entitled to disability pension. The Supreme Court observed that once the Medical Board had formed its opinion that his illness was not caused by military service, the High Court should not have granted disability pension to him. The Court relied on previous judgements to come to this conclusion.

Held: The appeal was allowed but the Supreme Court ordered that the payment already made to Balachandran as Disability Pension, to not be recovvered from him.

Cases Referred

  • Union of India and others vs. Dhir Singh China, Col (Retd) (2003) 2 SCC 382
  • Union of India and another vs. Baljit Singh; (1996) 11 SCC 315

Top

Shri Bhagwan vs. Union of India

Filed under: Article 226, Constitution of India
Appellant: Ex-Signalman Shri Bhagwan
Respondent: Union of India
Citation: 2003 I AD (Delhi) 185
Court: In the High Court of Delhi
Judges: Anil Dev Singh and Madan B Lokur

Facts

Ex-Signalman Shri Bhagwan was enrolled in the army as a regular combatant on the 11th of January 1984. Before his enrolment he was subjected to a detailed medical examination. He was found medically fit at the time of enrollment. In the year 1990, Bhagwan developed neurotic depression and was admitted to the Army hospital at Nazirabad. Thereafter he was transferred to a hospital in Jodhpur.

In the year 1991, he was recommended for invalidation from the Army, by the Medical Board. The Graded Specialist (Psychiatrist) opined that Bhagwan was incapable of further improvement and his continuation in service would not be in the best interest of the service. In accordance with this recommendation, Bhagwan was invalidated out of service with 40% disability for two years.

Thereafter, Bhagwan claimed disability pension but his claim was rejected by the Chief Controller of Defense Accounts (Pensions)(CCDA) on the ground that the disability suffered by him was not attributable to military service. A letter communicated this rejection to him and he was advised to file an appeal within 6 months if he was aggrieved by the rejection of his claim. Bhagwan instead issued a lawyer's notice to the Army for grant of disability pension.

Thereafter he was informed that the issue of grant of disability pension was re-examined but he was not entitled to it. Aggrieved by the rejection of his claim Bhagwan filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Army to grant him disability pension along with service pension with effect from the date of his retirement from service.

In the counter affidavit filed by the Army, it was stated that the Medical Board had opined that Bhagwan's disability, namely, neurotic depression, was neither attributable to nor aggravated by the military service and on the basis of that his claim for disability pension was rejected by the pension sanctioning authority.

Observations of the Court

The Court held that in order to appreciate the aspects of the case it was necessary to examine the various statutory rules, regulations, orders, decisions and instructions on the subject. The Court further pointed out that there were many cases, which dealt with the same issue. Therefore, while the general principles that the Court would take up for this case would be applicable more or less uniformly, some fine tuning may be required in individual cases.

The Court then went on to explicate the various rules and regulations that had a bearing on the issue of disability pension. The Court also referred to several previous decisions of the High Court and the Supreme Court. In view of these and the suggestions given by the lawyers on behalf of the claimants the Court gave the following directions to the Army and the Union of India.

  • When a claim for disability pension was rejected by any of the pension sanctioning authorities, the letter/order rejecting the claim should specifically indicate that the individual was entitled to file the first appeal to the Appellate Committee. He should be further advised that an appeal might be preferred within a specified period. The designation and address of the person to whom the first appeal had to be sent should also be indicated.
  • When the Appellate Committee for the First Appeals rejects the first appeal of the claimant, he should be specifically informed in the letter/order that he was entitled to make a second and final appeal to the Defense Minister’s Appellate Committee.
  • The respondents should devise a simple form that could easily be filled up by an individual while filing the first and second appeal. This form should also contain all the relevant particulars that the claimant may be required to fill up to assist and enable the authorities to take proper decisions in the appeals.
  • The Court also pointed out that one of the grievances made by the claimant was that he was not given all the relevant material to enable him to file an effective appeal. The Court directed that on a demand made by a claimant for any specific particulars regarding his medical condition, it should be provided to him unless there was a violation of medical ethics or the information was confidential. The material should be supplied to the claimant within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the request.

In reference to Bhagwan’s case, the Court pointed out that the Medical Board had concluded that his disease was neither attributable nor aggravated by the military service and this view was upheld by the CCDA. Therefore it was not appropriate to disturb the concurrent conclusions arrived by the Army. The Court held that on these grounds Bhagwan was not entitled to disability pension.

So far as the other cases were concerned, the Court issued a writ and remanded the matter to the Controller of Defense Accounts, Allahabad, to reconsider all those cases in light of the directions given and the conclusions reached by the Court. The Court also held that if any claimant had any grievance with regard to the payment or any other amount, including any service pension, he may raise the issue before the appropriate authority.

Held: The writ petitions were disposed with these terms and each of the petitioners including Bhagwan were entitled to litigation expenses of Rs. 2500/- each.

Sections Referred:

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950

Cases Referred:

  • Corporal Satbir Singh vs. Union of India. 1999 (5) SLR 352.
  • Deepak Kumar Singh vs. Union of India, 1997 (43) DRJ 4 (DB).
  • Ex-Sepoy Jagbir Singh vs. Union of India, 2000 (2) SCT 555.
  • Ex-Subedar Clerk Nirmal Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., 1999 (7) SLR 644.
  • Jai Bhagwan Rohilla vs. Chief of Air Staff, 2000 (1) SCT 910.
  • Jarnali Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., 1997 (3) RSJ 619.
  • Joginder Singh & Smt. Charanjit Kaur vs. Union of India and Ors., Jt 1994 (1) SC 131.
  • Lance Dafadar Joginder Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., 1995 Supp (3) SCC 232.
  • Madan Singh Skekhawat vs. Union of India & Ors., (1999) 6 SCC 459.
  • Mohan Amba Prasad Agnihotri & Ors. Vs. Bhaskar Balwant Aher (D) through LRs.2000 (2) SCALE 186)
  • Nachhattar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., 1999 (2) SLR 691.
  • Naik Darshan Singh vs. Union of India, 1999 (7) SLR 398.
  • Raghbubir Singh vs. Union of India & Anr., 73 (1998) DLT 567.
  • Surmukh Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., 1999 (4) SLR 510
  • Union of India & Anr. vs. Baljit Singh, (1996) 11 SCC 315
  • Union of India & Ors. vs. Savitri Devi Mehta & Ors., 97 (2002) DLT 796 (DB).

Top