Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1626 (RAJ)

Surja Ram v. Union of India

2003-12-05

K.S.RATHORE

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. :- The petitioner was enrolled in the army on 26.10.61. During the Indo-Pak war the petitioner suffered injuries to both his legs due to bomb blast and bullet by enemy shelling/firing during Indo-Pak war 1965. 2. The petitioner was discharged from service on 21.5.68 after 6 years 6 months and 26 days service in lower medical category B, treated as invalided from service as per Rule I of the Regulation. 3. The case of the petitioner is that since the petitioner received injuries during Indo-Pak war. As per, the provisions of Rules 6(a) and 7(b) the petitioner is fully entitled for grant for disability pension as per Regulations 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army Part I and in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Courts. 4. Mr. Shyam Singh appearing for the petitioner submits that under Regulation 173 unless otherwise specifically provided, a disability pension may be granted to an individual who is invalided from service on account of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service and is assessed at 20 per cent or over. 5. In view of Rule 6(a)(i) injuries sustained when the man is on duty will be deemed to have arisen in or resulted from military service but in cases of injuries due to serious negligence/misconduct, the question of reducing the pension will be considered. 6. As per rule 7(b) a disease which has led to an individual's discharge or death will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service if no note of it was made at the time of the individual's acceptance for military service. However if medical opinion hold, for reasons to be stated, that the' disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior to acceptance for service the disease will not be deemed to have arisen during service. 7. The case of the petitioner fall within the ambit of the Rule 6(a) sub-rule (i) and as per Regulation 173 a disability which is attributed to the petitioner or aggravated during the military service. 8. The petitioner represented for disability pension before the Army Headquarter. Vide letter dated 23.2.2000 the letter dated 18.1.2000 of the petitioner was acknowledged by the Army Headquarters and it was informed to the petitioner that your petition/letter under reference in being examined by GS/lnf-6 at this Headquarters. 8. The petitioner represented for disability pension before the Army Headquarter. Vide letter dated 23.2.2000 the letter dated 18.1.2000 of the petitioner was acknowledged by the Army Headquarters and it was informed to the petitioner that your petition/letter under reference in being examined by GS/lnf-6 at this Headquarters. But no order whatsoever has been passed on the representation/ letter so submitted by the petitioner. 9. But here before this Court, in the reply to the writ petition the respondents admitted this fact that the petitioner sustained wounds in left foot during enemy action on 10.9.1965 in Chhamb Sector and was placed in the medical category CEE (Temporary) for six months. 10. The petitioner had. applied for his discharge from service on extreme compassionate ground during April, 1968. Subsequently he was discharged from service on 21.5.68 at his own request. 11. As per the provisions of Para 179 of Pension Regulations for Army 1961 (Part I) an individual retired/discharged on completion of tenure or on completion of serviced limits or on completion of terms of engagement or on attaining the age of 50 years (irrespective of their period of engagement), if found suffering form a disability attributable to or aggravated by military service and recorded by Service Medical Authorities, shall be deemed to have been invalided out of service and shall be granted disability pension from the date of retirement, if the accepted degree of disability is 20 percent or more. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Pareek submits that in the instance case the petitioner is not eligible for grant of disability pension under existing rules, since he was discharged from service on extreme compassionate grounds at his own request before fulfilling the conditions of terms of engagement. However, a sum of Rs. 284.35 on account of service gratuity and Rs. 142.20 on account of difference of service gratuity had been paid to him. 13. He also raised the objection that the petitioner has approached Records. The Grenadiers for pension during Oct. 1988 after a delay of 20 years from the date of his discharge from service and on the ground of delay the respondents raised the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this writ petition. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. 13. He also raised the objection that the petitioner has approached Records. The Grenadiers for pension during Oct. 1988 after a delay of 20 years from the date of his discharge from service and on the ground of delay the respondents raised the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this writ petition. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Shyam Singh in support of his arguments submits that the controversy involved in this case is fully covered by the following judgments: Rampal Singh ( AIR 1984 SC 504 ) Baljor Singh ( 1997(6) SLR 368 ) Lt. Col. Malhotra ( 1998(2) SLR 81 ) Karam Singh (2000(2) SLR 87) Ramkumar Singh (SBCWP No. 4904/97) decided on 27.3.99 Virendra Kumar (1992(2) SLR 512-para 4) D.N. Prasad (AIR 1971 SC 140) D.S. Nakara ( AIR 1983 SC 130 ) : [1983(2) SLR 246 (SC)] Roshan Lal (1992(3) SLR662) A.S. Randhawa (1997(4) SLR 617) Lal Singh ( 1999(1) RLR 114 ) Joginder Singh (1996(2) SLR 149) Rukma ( 2000(3) WLC 102 ) Madan Singh Shekhawat (JT 1999(6) SC 116) : [ 1999(4) SLR 744 (SC)] 15. Bal Kanwar v. U.O.I. (SBCWP No. 5947/2002) decided on 21.1.2003. 16. After referring the aforesaid judgments, it is given out that the consistent view of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this High Court is that on the ground of delay and latches pension claim of the petitioner cannot be denied and authorities should be liberal in pension matters and Hyper technical approach adopted by the Government ignoring the objective of the scheme followed is not correct. 17. The fact with relation to the discharge at his own request, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that being illiterate and ignorant he could not take his case earlier. 18. The petitioner submitted several representations for considering his case in view of the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court and as similarly situated persons are getting pension even after delay of 20 years. Therefore, the case of the petitioner cannot be solitary isolated and this present petition cannot be thrown simply on the ground of delay. Therefore, the case of the petitioner cannot be solitary isolated and this present petition cannot be thrown simply on the ground of delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court is the cases of Rampal Singh, Baljor Singh, Lt Col Malhotra, Rukma condoned the delay and observed that on the ground of delay and latches pension claim of the petitioner cannot be denied and the authorities should be liberal in pension matter without taking any technical objections and should achieve the objective of the scheme of the pension. 19. Upon perusal of the Clause 173 of the Regulation the petitioner is entitled to receive pension as the disability of the petitioner is assessed at 20%. This fact has not been disputed that the injuries was received by the petitioner during Indo-Pak war. 20. I also considered the case of Ex-Subedar Baljor Singh v. Union of India, ( 1997(6) SLR 368 wherein it was held that orders which proceed on basis that it was a simpliciter voluntary discharge and not discharge on medical grounds being bad in law are liable to be quashed and set aside, petitioner entitled to disability pension from the date of his discharge. 21. Herein the instant case also even the argument of the respondents is considered that the voluntary discharge was given at his own request, the petitioner is entitled for disability pension from the date of his discharge. 22. In the case of Lt. C.o.l. BR Malhotra v. UOI, ( 1998(2) SLR 81 the Court held that people who become disable due to military service are a class apart, they cannot be discriminated nor denied disability pension on the ground of voluntary retirement. The disability does not cease on voluntary retirement. The same view has been taken in the case of Sansar Chand Atri v. State of Punjab, 2002(3) SLR 310 ). 23. On the point of delay the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Rukma v. State of Rajasthan ( 2000(3) WLC 102 held that it is settled law that in case of pension, the cause of action is recurring and therefore there is no question of any delay or latches. 24. 23. On the point of delay the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Rukma v. State of Rajasthan ( 2000(3) WLC 102 held that it is settled law that in case of pension, the cause of action is recurring and therefore there is no question of any delay or latches. 24. The similarly situated persons have been granted disability pension and denial of disability pension to the petitioner is a continuous wrong is held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nathu Singh v. U.O.I. (2003X2) WLC 1. 25. Upon careful examination of the case of Jawara Ram passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.- 2830/96 decided on 23.10.2002, in that case the petitioner who was denied disability pension on the ground that he was discharged on his own request was held entitled for disability pension and directions issued to pay him disability pension within 90 days. 26. The ratio decided by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition is squarely covered by the present controversy and the petitioner is entitled to get the disability pension and require direction to make the payment of disability pension within 90 days. 27. In view of the ratio decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court and by this High Court, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled for disability pension and hence respondents are directed to release the disability pension in favour of the petitioner within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. With these directions, the writ petition stands allowed with no order as to costs. Petition allowed. *******