SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1962 Supreme(P&H) 4

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Shamsher Bahadur, J.
Bhagwant Singh S/o.Nanak Singh
Versus
Union Of India
Civil Writ No. 98 of 1958,
Decided On : JANUARY 4, 1962

A pension granted for life cannot be subsequently revised without affording the pensioner an opportunity to show cause against it.

Headnote:

PENSION - RIGHT TO PENSION - DISABILITY PENSION - MODIFICATION - PENSION GRANTED FOR LIFE - SUBSEQUENT REVISION - LEGALITY - RIGHT TO PROPERTY - ARTICLE 31 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Bhagwant Singh, was granted a disability pension after being declared unfit for service due to diabetes mellitus. The pension was later reduced and eventually canceled after a reassessment of his disability. The petitioner challenged the cancellation of his pension, arguing that it violated his right to property under Article 31 of the Constitution of India.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner had a right to the pension granted to him, and that the cancellation of his pension without affording him an opportunity to show cause against it was a violation of his right to property under Article 31 of the Constitution of India.

Issues: Whether the petitioner had a right to the pension granted to him. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's pension without affording him an opportunity to show cause against it was a violation of his right to property under Article 31 of the Constitution of India.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner had a right to the pension granted to him because it was given in accordance with rules and was recognized as a right which could be tinkered with only under specified conditions. The court also held that the cancellation of the petitioner's pension without affording him an opportunity to show cause against it was a violation of his right to property under Article 31 of the Constitution of India.

Final Decision: The court set aside the order of cancellation of the petitioner's pension and awarded him costs.

Judgment

1. The facts on which the decision of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must turn are not in dispute and may be briefly set out. The petitioner, Bhagwant Singh, while serving as a civilian clerk with the rant of Subedar in Army Ordnance Corps, developed diabetes which necessitated his repatriation from Singapur to India in February, 1946. He was sent to a board of medical specialists and declared unfit for service on the 17th of September, 1946 on account of "diabetes mellitus." In the view of the medical board the disability had aggravated by was service and the degree of disablement was assessed at 50 per cent "incapable of improvement". He was granted provisional pension described as a "pending enquiry award" at Rs. 88/8/- with effect from 8th of November, 1946.

Subsequently the pension was made a permanent disability pension also with effect from 8th of November, 1946, but the amount was reduced to Rs. 82/8/-. The petitioner was given some other employment till 1953 in the Delhi Ordnance Depot. By letter dated 23rd of March, 1955, the petitioner was informed that the pension granted to him stood cancelled and it was explained subsequently that the board had re-assessed disablement at 20 per cent which disentitled him to any pension. Moreover it was stated that the disability was not aggravated by war service.

2. The present petition was filed by Rhagwant Singh on 1st of November, 1958, on the ground that his right to hold pension had been interfered with without just cause and in contravention of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner would certainly be entitled to seek the aid of this Court certainly be entitled to seek the aid of this Court provided he is able to show that the right, which has been denied to him, is relatable to property under Article 31 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on an English decision of the Court of Appeal in Ex parte Huggins, In re Huggins, (1822) 21 Ch D 85. In that case the bankrupt, H. J. Huggins, had been Chief Justice of the colony of Sierra Leone and had retired on a pension of £875 per annum. It was held that the pension of a retired Judge of a Crown colony, granted by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and voted annually by the Legislature of the colony, is, in case of the bankruptcy of the Judge "property" which vests in the trustee in the bankruptcy. The word "property" has not been defined anywhere and it has to be conceded that the right to receive a pension is right of property, but it still remains to be determined whether the pension granted to the petitioner in the present instance partakes the nature of a fundamental right under Article 31 for whose protection a wit under Article 226 could be entertained.

The petitioner had been in service since 1939 and became entitled, according to the first medical board, to the disability pension which on subsequent examination by another board came to have been assessed wrongly. Mr. Jindra Lal on behalf of the respondent has contended that there is no statutory right to receive a pension and the question whether it constitutes property or no becomes an irrelevant matter. My attention has been invited to Annexure R/1, which reproduced a copy of the Army Instruction 388/50 where with Rule 374 of the Pension Regulations for the Army in India was revised. Under this revised instruction, which is of the year 1950, a disability pension could be modified if on the result of a further medical examination of the individual the disability is reduced or has disappeared or has become capable of improvement. This instruction was to take effect from 28th of July, 1948.

3. It is contended by the petitioner that the pension granted for life to the petitioner in April, 1948, could not be subsequently revised even under the amended Army instruction which took effect from 28th of July, 1948. Though no particular reference has been made to disability pe









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top