Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1458 (PNJ)

Union Of India v. No. 22919 Ex. Sep. Dali Singh

2007-08-07

MAHESH GROVER, VIJENDER JAIN

body2007
Judgment Vijender Jain, J. 1. C.M.No. 647 of 2007 For the reasons stated therein, the application is allowed and the delay in the filing of the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No. 159 of 2007 2. The appellants have impugned judgment dated 6.9.2006 of the learned Single Judge whereby the respondent was held entitled for service element of pension as per the rates fixed by the Central Government w.e.f. 7.8.1952 and onward for life. 3. While assailing the aforesaid finding recorded by the learned Single Judge, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the benefits be curtailed to a period of three years as was done by the Supreme Court in the judgment reported as 2007(1) Law Herald (P&H) 556 (S.C.) Shiv Dass v. Union of India and others. Wherein it was held as under :- "In the peculiar circumstances, we remit the matter to the High Court to hear the writ petition on merits. If it is found that the claim for disability pension is sustainable in law, then it would mould the relief but in no event grant any relief for a period exceeding three years from the date of presentation of the writ petition. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits as to whether appellants claim for disability pension is maintainable or not. If it is sans merit, the High Court naturally would dismiss the writ petition." 4. We have considered the matter in its perspective. The respondent, who was enrolled with the Indian Army on 17.10.1941, suffered injuries in J. & K. operation in the year 1948 as a bullet hit him on 11.7.1948. He was admitted to the military hospital and as a result of the said injury, the respondent was invalidated out of military service on 23.7.1949 after having rendered 7 years and 9 months of service. The disability of the respondent was assessed at 30% permanent for life. He was granted disability pension consisting both the service element and disability element from 24.7.1949 to 6.8.1952. Thereafter his service element of pension was sought to be discontinued by invoking Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for Army, 1961 (for short, `the Regulations) which, in fact, talks of discontinuance of the disability element of pension if the disability assessed was less than 20%. Thereafter his service element of pension was sought to be discontinued by invoking Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for Army, 1961 (for short, `the Regulations) which, in fact, talks of discontinuance of the disability element of pension if the disability assessed was less than 20%. Concededly, the disability of the respondent was found reduced to less than 20% in Re- survey, but in no circumstances, his element of service could be reduced. 5. Learned Single Judge, while accepting the prayer of the respondent,. noticed that the case of the respondent was squarely covered by the judgment in the case of Amarjit Singh v. Union of India and others, CWP No. 12311 of 1996, decided on 27.2.1997, which could not be controverted by the learned counsel for the appellants. 6. To a pointed query by this Court as to whether Amarjit Singhs case (supra) was challenged before the Apex Court, learned counsel for the appellants replied in the affirmative and conceded that the SLP against the same had been dismissed. 7. In view of the aforesaid, there is no infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. 8. However, learned counsel for the appellants emphasized that the benefit be confined to three years in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Shiv Dasss case (supra). We have considered this aspect of the matter and find ourselves unable to agree with the learned counsel for the appellants. In Shiv Dasss case. (supra), the disability suffered by the incumbent was on account of weak eye sight and not attributed to direct military action, but in the instant case, the respondent is said to have suffered injuries which were directly attributed to military service and, therefore, the appellants were bound to pay him the disability pension for whole of his life which was also acknowledged by the appellants by their communication dated 11.9.2002 addressed to Chief C.D.A. (P) intimating him that the service element is admissible to the respondent which was granted to him vide PC No. 139, 11, dated 25.7.1949 and was required to paid to the respondent for whole of his life. 9. In Savitri Devi Mehta and others v. Union of India and others, (2005)10 S.C.C. 325, the Supreme Court granted this benefit even after lapse of 30 years especially when the disability was attributed to military service. 10. 9. In Savitri Devi Mehta and others v. Union of India and others, (2005)10 S.C.C. 325, the Supreme Court granted this benefit even after lapse of 30 years especially when the disability was attributed to military service. 10. On the basis of the above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned single Judge and the Letters Patent Appeal is devoid of any merit and is dismissed as such.