Back
2010 Supreme(P&H) 117
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Permod Kohli, J.
Capt Paramdeep Singh
Versus
Union Of India
Civil Writ Petition No. 7283 of 1997,
Decided On : JANUARY 7, 2010
The central legal point established in the judgment is the attribution of the petitioner's injury to military service, making him eligible for disability pension under relevant regulations.
Headnote:
denial of extension in service and grant of disability pension - Indian Army - Regulation 173, Appendix II, Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 - The judgment discusses the denial of extension in service and grant of disability pension to a petitioner who sustained injury while driving an Army vehicle. The court analyzed the findings of the Court of Inquiry, medical boards, and relevant regulations to conclude that the injury was attributable to military service, making the petitioner eligible for disability pension.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Indian Army officer, sustained injury while driving an Army vehicle, leading to his discharge and denial of disability pension. The petitioner challenged the denial of extension in service and disability pension, citing the injury's attribution to military service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the injury sustained by the petitioner was attributable to military service, making him eligible for disability pension. The court also rejected the respondents' claims of negligence and discharge due to expiry of tenure, emphasizing the clear findings of the Court of Inquiry and medical boards.
Issues: The issues revolved around the attribution of the petitioner's injury to military service, denial of disability pension, and the validity of the petitioner's discharge from service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the findings of the Court of Inquiry, medical boards, and relevant regulations to establish the attribution of the injury to military service, rejecting the respondents' claims of negligence and discharge due to expiry of tenure.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, directing the respondents to grant disability pension to the petitioner and release the benefit within three months, with restricted arrears to three years preceding the filing of the writ petition.
PERMOD KOHLI, J.
1. Questioning the denial of extension in service and grant of disability pension, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging both the orders Annexures P-2 and P-3, annexed hereto in this petition.
2. Facts leading to the filing of this petitioner are briefly noticed. The petitioner was commissioned in Indian Army as 2nd Lieutenant on 11.3.1989. He was posted to 503 ASC Battalion Leh. Petitioner was deputed for an administrative duty.
3. On 2.12.1989, the petitioner was proceeding from his battalion to another Battalion 528 in the official vehicle. He was himself driving the vehicle. When the vehicle reached near Pathar Sahib gurudwara, on Leh-Kargil road, it overturned on the hilly terrain. It is alleged by the petitioner that the said accident was on account of mechanical failure. The petitioner and other officials travelling in the vehicle were injured. The petitioner was evacuated to Military Hospital and thereafter to the Command Hospital, Western Command, chandimandir Cantt.
4. A Court of Inquiry was convened to inquire into the causes of accident. The Court of Inquiry gave following findings: -
"1. On 02nd Dec.89 the Veh Jonga No.84b 27680l of 503 ASC Bn was on bonafide duty. The Veh was going from 503 ASC Bn to Pathar Sahab (Witness No.1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 ).2. The Veh met with an accident near Pathar Sahab at about 1300 hrs. (Witness No.1, 3 and 4)3. The Jonga No.84b 27680l met with an accident due to brake failure. (Witness No.1, 3, 4, 8 and EME accident report form)4.2/lt Paramdeep Singh was driving the Veh alongwith 3 Ors (Witness no.1, 2, 3, 4) (a) No 13846234 Hav MT RS Yadav (b) No 13848867 Nk Jagat Bahadur (c) No 13894790 Sp Ashu Singh 5.2/lt Paramdeep Singh tried to stop the Veh but could not do so because of brake failure. He tried to stop the Veh by bringing it against the hill side. The Veh hit the big boulders and turned over n the right side of the road about 800 Yds ahead of Pathar Sahab (Witness No 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5)6.2/lt Paramdeep Singh sustained major injury on the right writ and the 3 Ors sustained minor bruises. There was no major injury to the 3 Ors. The offr was conscious through out the incident (Witness No 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7)7.2/lt Paramdeep Singh was operated upon on 02nd Dec 89 at 153 GH for compound fracture of the right wrist and tendon and muscle repair of forearm (Witness No 6)8. The officer had passed the hill driving test held by 503 ASC Bn on 27th Nov 89. He possessed a Mil driving licence and a Civil Driving licence. (Extract attached)9. CO 503 ASC Bn had permitted 2/lt Paramdeep Singh to drive the Vehs. (Witness No 7 and CTC of cert signed by CO)10. There was no evidence of foul play. " on recording the aforesaid findings, the Court gave the following final opinion: - "1. The court is of the opinion that SS-33900k 2/lt Paramdeep Singh of 503 ASC. He was driving the Veh on bonafide duty after having passed the hill driving test on 27th Nov 89.
2. 2/lt Paramdeep Singh possesses a Mil driving licence; and civil driving licence.
3. The accident occurred due to sudden failure of the brakes and no body is to be blamed.
4. The injury caused to SS-33900k 2/lt Paramdeep Singh is attributable to Mil Service in field.
5. The loss of Rs.17266.00 to be borne by state.
The opinion of the Court of Inquiry was accepted by the general Officer Commanding 3 Inf Division with the following observations: -
"the injury caused to SS 33900k 2nd Lt Paramdeep Singh be attributable to MIL service in FD area. "
apart from Court of Inquiry, Form "iafy-2008" was also prepared in consultation with the Medical Officer, declaring the injury sustained by the petitioner attributable to Military Service.
5. The petitioner remained admitted in Command Hospital, headquarters Western Command, Chandimandir till 15.3.1990 and remained on sick leave from 15.3.1990 to 30.4.1990. On his discharge, the petitioner was examined by the medical board and was placed in medical category S1h1a3 (U) (T-24)
