Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1993 (DEL)

BEERMATI DEVI v. UNION OF INDIA

2007-12-07

HIMA KOHLI, VIKRAMAJIT SEN

body2007
JUDGMENT Vikramajit Sen, J. (Oral)-Rule D.B. 2. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties in detail, we proceed to decide these Writ Petitions. 3. The disability in the present case occurred prior to 1973. The relevant extant Rule 186 of the Pension Regulations for the Army 1961 (part-I & II) reads as follows. "(1) An individual who is invalided out of service with a disability attributable to or aggravated by service but assessed at below 20 per cent shall be entitled to service element only. (2) An individual who was initially granted disability pension but whose disability is reassessed at below 20% subsequently shall cease to draw disability element of disability pension from the date it falls below 20 per cent. He shall however continue to draw the service element of disability pension. " 4. Counsel for the respondents rightly concedes and confirms that on an application of Rule 186, even where disability proportion is below 20%, the beneficiary concerned would be entitled to Service Element of the Disability Pension. This question is no longer res integra in view of the conclusions reached by the Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Saroj Kumar, Teacher Govt. Girls Sr. Sec. School, Ferozpur v. State of Punjab, 1998 (III) RSJ 350 and several Division Benches of this Court. These decisions include Sep. Jai Singh v. UOI, 119 (2005) DLT 66 (DB)=2005 (4) SCT 270, by B.A. Khan and B.N. Chaturvedi, JJ., W.P.(C) 570/1999 titled Ex. Sub. Major Balbir Singh v. Union of India, MANU/DE/1289/2004 decided by Mukundakam Sharma and Gita Mittal, JJ. on 17.12.2004; W.P. (C) 11808/2005 titled Jagmal Singh v. UOI decided on 28.7.2006 by Swatanter Kumar and G.S. Sistani, J.J.; and W.P.(C) 203/2004 titled Jeevan Ram v. Union of India, decided on 4.10.2007 by Sanjay Kishan Kaul and S.L.Bhayana, JJ. A Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in W.P.(C) 12311/1996 titled Ex. Sigman Amarjit Singh v. Union of India by K. Sreedharan, CJ and N.K. Kapoor, J. has also come to the same conclusion. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondents, however, contends that since the present Rule 186 was introduced on 1.1.1973, the petitioners would not be covered by the amended provisions since they were invalidated prior thereto. It is incontrovertible, however, that the Rule is beneficient in nature and should, therefore, be liberally construed in favour of persons subsequently coming under its umbrella. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondents, however, contends that since the present Rule 186 was introduced on 1.1.1973, the petitioners would not be covered by the amended provisions since they were invalidated prior thereto. It is incontrovertible, however, that the Rule is beneficient in nature and should, therefore, be liberally construed in favour of persons subsequently coming under its umbrella. Even otherwise, there is no reason why retroactive effect should not be given to the Rule. In coming to this opinion we are fortified by the decision in V. Kasturi v. Managing Director, State Bank of India, Bombay, VIII (1998) SLT 297= (1998) 8 SCC 30 . In that case Pension Rules had been amended, but the benefit of the Amendment had not been allowed to the petitioners. The Honble Supreme Court had held that there was no reason why persons eligible for pension should not receive pension at the enhanced rates. 6. In these circumstances, the writ petitions are allowed. It would not make any difference that the petitioner is the widow of the disabled soldier. The respondents are directed to pay the petitioners the Service Element of Disability Pension with effect from three years prior to the date of the filing of their writ petitions. Arrears be calculated and disbursed to the petitioners within three months from today. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Result: Writ Petitions allowed.