Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 845 (DEL)

ROMAL SINGH v. DIRECTOR CEREMONIAL AND WELFARE

2006-05-05

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, MUKUL MUDGAL

body2006
MUKUL MUDGAL,J, J. ( 1 ) RULE DB. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. ( 2 ) ON 9th December, 2004 the following order was passed by this Court:-"the petitioner joined Indian Army on 20th March, 1944. The petitioner sustained bullet injuries in the enemy action during Pakistan operation in 1965 by Enemy Artillary shell round firing and bullet injury. During such fire, one of the bullets entered into his body which remained inside and near the spinal cord. The said bullet was not detected by the respondents during the medical check up and treatment given by the medical staff of the respondents. The petitioner completed his service tenure and thereafter superannuated from service and he was transferred to the Pension Branch on 10th October, 1968. The petitioner was granted service pension of Rs. 77/- per month which subsequently was revised. Even thereafter, the petitioner was medically examined and even during the course of the aforesaid medical examination, the aforesaid bullet which remained in his body could not be detected by the medical staff of the respondents and they declared the petitioner fit in all respects. The petitioner subsequently lost his eye sight of one eye. When x-ray was done at the Command Hospital (WC), Chandimandir ? 134 107 and then it was detected some time on 10th September, 1999 that a bullet was lying embedded in soft tissues of the paraspinal region on the left sight at DV 7-8 level. The petitioner is undergoing treatment in respect of the aforesaid ailment. The petitioner has filed this application not only for grant of ex-gratia pension but also for payment of disability pension on the ground that the disability that the petitioner now suffers from which is loss of sight of one eye is due to retention of the bullet in his body which had occurred during his course of employment and is attributable to military service. The respondents although do not dispute the factual position but take a plea that the petitioner superannuated from service after two years of the incident and he has suffered from disability after a long passage of time and, therefore, the said disability, even if there be any, cannot be said to be attributable to military service. The respondents although do not dispute the factual position but take a plea that the petitioner superannuated from service after two years of the incident and he has suffered from disability after a long passage of time and, therefore, the said disability, even if there be any, cannot be said to be attributable to military service. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the prima facie opinion that there has been negligence on the part of the respondents in giving proper treatment to the petitioner which is proved and established from the very fact that the bullet which is lying inside the body of the petitioner could not be detected and could not be taken out due to which a disability has now occurred to the petitioner. " ( 3 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at length, we are satisfied that the above prima facie opinion of the Division Bench stands substantiated. The fact that the petitioner sustained an injury during enemy action in the Indo Pak war in 1965 is not disputed. The existence of a bullet in the body of the petitioner who sustained the injury in the said war is also not disputed. It is also not disputed that the injury was discovered about 2 years after the retirement of the petitioner. The petitioner has been suffering from back pain which led to the discovery of the embedded bullet in his para spinal soft tissue. ( 4 ) AFTER perusing the rival pleas of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sh. Ambikay Ray and the learned counsel for the respondent Ms. Jyoti singh, we are satisfied that the petitioner would not be entitled to get the disability claim because he was not boarded out of the Army on the basis of a disability but in fact completed his entire tenure, and consequently is not entitled to the disability claim. The report submitted by the AIIMS which was directed to do so by this Court on 9th December, 2004, also indicates that the present ailments of the petitioner are not directly attributable to the embedded bullet. Even the report submitted by the Re-Survey Medical Board constituted by the respondent reflects the opinion of the AIIMS. The report submitted by the AIIMS which was directed to do so by this Court on 9th December, 2004, also indicates that the present ailments of the petitioner are not directly attributable to the embedded bullet. Even the report submitted by the Re-Survey Medical Board constituted by the respondent reflects the opinion of the AIIMS. There is merit in this plea of the respondent and consequently we hold that since the petitioner completed his entire tenure in the Army and suffered no prejudice to his career, the sine- qua-non for the entitlement for the disability claim was absent. However, the fact that the petitioner in spite of suffering an injury in the war had carried a bullet embedded in his body which came to be discovered 2 years after his retirement cannot be disputed. The back pain of the petitioner embedded with a bullet coupled with the psychological trauma suffered by retired person on discovering that he is permanently carrying a bullet in his body would demonstrate eloquently that even though an injury leading to the lodging of a bullet in the petitioner s back was sustained in war, the bullet discovered well after his retirement displays some negligence as prima facie found by the order of this court dated 9th December, 2004 ( 5 ) WE have taken into account the fact that the petitioner is a battle scarred veteran. The petitioner has received the following awards:- (i) War Medal 1947 (ii) Indian Indepence Medal, Rakha Medal, Sainik Medal with clasp J and K (iii) G. S. Megal 1947 with clasp Naga hills (iv) U. N. Medal Kongo (v) Videsh Seva Medal with clasp Kongo and his character has been assessed vide R. A. I. Instruction No. 203 as exemplary . ( 6 ) THUS containing the outstanding track records of the petitioner coupled with a fact that he is a battle-scarred veteran, his case deserves a sympathetic consideration. We are also surprised to know even though the petitioner sustained an injury during the Indo Pak war in 1965 he was not been decorated or given any award for the said war of 1965. We are also surprised to know even though the petitioner sustained an injury during the Indo Pak war in 1965 he was not been decorated or given any award for the said war of 1965. ( 7 ) TAKING into account all the aforesaid factors we are of the view that since the petitioner has carried a bullet embedded in his back, which was not discovered in the medical treatment accorded to him in the Army during the petitioner s years in service he should be awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- a compensation for the psychological and physical trauma suffered by the petitioner for no fault of his. The petitioner shall also be entitled to costs of Rs. 10,000/ -. The entire amount plus costs awarded to the petitioner shall be paid on or before 15th June, 2006. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and stands disposed of in the above terms. .