2011 Supreme(SC) 344

2011 (2) Supreme 675
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.
K.J.S. Buttar — Appellant
versus
Union of India and Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5591 of 2006
Decided on : 31-3-2011

IMPORTANT POINT
If it is a liberalization of an existing scheme all pensioners are to be treated equally, but if it is introduction of a new retrial benefit, its benefit will not be available to those who stood retired prior to its introduction.

Headnote:Service Law- Appellant an ex-captain in the Indian Army, during the course of his service, suffered serious injuries of a permanent nature and was invalided out of service- Writ petition filed by appellant claiming War Injury Pension w.e.f. 1.1.1996 in terms of Ministry of Defence letter dated 31.1.2001; Treating the disability at 75% instead of 50% w.e.f. 1.1.1996 as per Ministry of Defence letter dated 31.1.2001; Grant of service element for full 10 years of service instead of 2 years; and Revision of the rates of the disability pension w.e.f. 1.1.1996 in terms of the letter dated 31.1.2001-Dismissed by High Court-Appeal-Relying upon decision in case of Union of India & Anr. vs. C.S. Sidhu held that appellant’s entire service in the army had to be taken into consideration for grant of Disability Pension - Stand of respondent that disability of appellant could not be enhanced to 75% because the relevant provision being para 7.2 of Government of India, Ministry of Defence, letter dated 31.1.2001 was applicable only to those cases where the officer was invalided out of service after 1.1.1996 and that appellant was invalided out much before date held unsustainable-Held restriction of the benefit to only officers who were invalided out of service after 1.1.1996 was violative of Article 14 of Constitution and was hence illegal- In view of instruction dated 31.1.2001 appellant was held entitled to the War Injury Pension- Held there would be violation of Article 14 of Constitution if those who retired/were invalided before 1.1.1996 were denied the same benefits as given to those who retired after that date-Appellant held entitled to grant of War Injury Pension w.e.f. 1.1.1996- Direction given that disability element of Disability Pension would be commuted as 75% instead of 50% and appellant would be granted arrears w.e.f. 1.1.1996 with an interest of 8% per annum- Appellant also held entitled to grant of 10 years’ commission service and interest from date of his release- Impugned judgment set aside.-Appeal allowed. (Paras 14 to 20)

       Facts of the Case :

        Appellant an ex-captain in the Indian Army, during the course of his service, suffered serious injuries of a permanent nature and was invalided out of service. Release Medical Board viewed his injury ‘gun shot wound left elbow’ as attributable to military service and assessing degree of disability at 50% released him from service in Low Medical Category and granted Disability Pension . Writ petition thereagainst was filed by appellant claiming War Injury Pension w.e.f. 1.1.1996 in terms of Ministry of Defence letter dated 31.1.2001; Treating the disability at 75% instead of 50% w.e.f. 1.1.1996 as per Ministry of Defence letter dated 31.1.2001; Grant of service element for full 10 years of service instead of 2 years; and Revision of the rates of the disability pension w.e.f. 1.1.1996 in terms of the letter dated 31.1.2001.Said writ petition was Dismissed by High Court.

        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        Relying upon decision in case of Union of India & Anr. vs. C.S. Sidhu held that appellant’s entire service in the army had to be taken into consideration for grant of Disability Pension . Stand of respondent that disability of appellant could not be enhanced to 75% because the relevant provision being para 7.2 of Government of India, Ministry of Defence, letter dated 31.1.2001 was applicable only to those cases where the officer was invalided out of service after 1.1.1996 and that appellant was invalided out much before date was held unsustainable. It was Held that restriction of the benefit to only officers who were invalided out of service after 1.1.1996 was violative of Article 14 of Constitution and was hence illegal. In view of instruction dated 31.1.2001 appellant was held entitled to the War Injury Pension. Held there would be violation of Article 14 of Constitution if those who retired/were invalided before 1.1.1996 were denied the same benefits as given to those who retired after that date. Appellant was held entitled to grant of War Injury Pension w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Direction was given that disability element of Disability Pension would be commuted as 75% instead of 50% and appellant would be granted arrears w.e.f. 1.1.1996 with an interest of 8% per annum. Appellant was also held entitled to grant of 10 years’ commission service and interest from date of his release. Impugned judgment was set aside. Appeal was allowed.

       Result : Appeal allowed.