Back
2017 Supreme(J&K) 823
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
N. PAUL VASANTHA KUMAR, DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JJ.
Union of India and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Suvinder Singh - Respondent
LPASW No. 58 of 2007 and MP No. 69 of 2007
Decided On : 01-02-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sindhu Sharma, ASGI.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of regulations governing disability pension in the Indian Army and the influence of previous Supreme Court decisions on such matters.
Headnote:
disability pension - Indian Army - Pension Regulations of the Army 1961, Rule 14 (b) of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 - The court discussed the provisions of Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations of the Army 1961 and Rule 14 (b) of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982. It highlighted the interpretation of these rules by the Supreme Court in previous cases and their influence on the court's decision to uphold the disability pension for the respondent.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a former Rifleman in the Indian Army, was discharged on medical grounds and his claim for disability pension was rejected. The Writ Court allowed the petition, directing the appellants to sanction disability pension to the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's disability was attributable to or aggravated by Army service, based on the interpretation of relevant regulations and previous Supreme Court decisions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent was entitled to disability pension based on the cause of his disability and the interpretation of relevant regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations of the Army 1961 and Rule 14 (b) of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982, as well as previous Supreme Court decisions, to determine the entitlement to disability pension.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were directed to sanction the disability pension to the respondent within a specified period.
N. PAUL VASANTHA KUMAR, J.
1. This appeal is preferred by the appellants challenging the order of learned Single Judge made in SWP No. 1335/2003, dated 07.12.2006, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent seeking quashing of order of rejection of disability pension dated 07.02.2002 and directing the appellants to sanction and release the disability pension in favour of the respondent who served in Indian Army. The case of the respondent before the Writ Court was that he was appointed as Rifleman in the Army on 12.05.1976 and was allotted No. 9081703. The performance of his duties was appreciated all along and he was posted at different places i.e., Tangdhar (Kashmir), Dalhousie, Nagaland, Srinagar, Arunachal, Sikkim etc. After serving for about 25 years, he was discharged from service on 31.08.2001 on medical grounds by order dated 31.08.2001. His prayer to sanction disability pension was rejected. He preferred an appeal which too was rejected. Hence writ petition was filed with the above said prayer.
2. The Writ Court after considering the recommendation of the Medical Board which has recommended boarding out of the respondent and holding him entitled to disability pension, allowed the writ petition with a direction to the appellants to consider the claim of the respondent and sanction disability pension as admissible under rules within a period of two months.
3. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the order of the writ Court by contending that despite specific stand taken by the appellants before the writ Court that the disease suffered by the respondent was constitutional disorder and neither attributable to nor aggravated by the military service, the disability pension has been ordered in favour of the respondent.
4. We have heard Mrs. Sindhu Sharma, learned ASGI and perused the case file.
5. The principal contention of the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India in this appeal is that learned Single Judge wrongly stated that the Medical Board recommended for disability pension. According to her the Medical Board is competent to state only with regard to the ability of the respondent to continue in service i.e. whether the respondent will be in a position to discharge his military duties or not in any other matter.
6. It is not in dispute that the respondent was enrolled as Rifleman on 12.05.1976 and served the Force till 31.08.2001. He was discharged on medical grounds by placing him in Medical Category CEE (Permanent) with 20% disability on account of "LABYRINTHINE VERTIGO-388". It is also not in dispute that the disability claim of the respondent was referred to Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) Allahabad on 05.11.2011 and the said authority rejected the disability pension case of the respondent on 28.02.2002, stating that the disease/disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.
7. It is relevant to point out at this juncture that the respondent participated in the selection process and was appointed as Rifleman on 12.05.1976. He was allotted No. 9081703 and was deputed for training also. At the time of selection and during the training period and during his 24 years of service, no disability was noticed by the appellants or Medical Officers attached to the training camp and the regiments where the respondent served. The respondent was posted at different places and he also discharged his duties efficiently and without any adverse remarks or blemish and these facts are not in dispute. During the medical examination at the time of his enrollment, the Medical Board examined the respondent on all aspects and found him medically fit which means that the respondent was in sound health and only in the year 2001, the Medical Board found that the respondent was suffering from "LABYRINTHINE VERTIGO-388". According to the respondent, the said medical disability occurred due to stress and strain of military service while serving in hard stations. The respon
