HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
BEFORE THE HONBLE S.H.A.RAZA, J., THE HONBLE KRISHNA KUMAR, J.
Ex.No. 14294238 Signalman Jagdamba Prasad Dubey
Versus
Union of India
Civil Misc.Writ Petition 29243 of 1996
Decided On : 26 July 1999
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 29243 Of 1996
ARMY PENSION REGULATIONS 1961 - REGULATION 173 - APPENDIX II - DISABILITY PENSION - GRANT OF DISABILITY PENSION TO SOLDIER DISCHARGED FROM SERVICE DUE TO DISABILITY ATTRIBUTABLE TO MILITARY SERVICE - INTERPRETATION OF REGULATION 173 AND APPENDIX II - DIRECTIONS TO MINISTRY OF DEFENSE TO RECONSIDER CASE OF PETITIONER FOR GRANT OF DISABILITY PENSION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a soldier, was discharged from military service due to disability (neurosis) attributable to military service. He applied for disability pension, but his claim was rejected by the Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) and the Secretary, Ministry of Defence (Pension and Appeals). The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court, which allowed the petition and directed the Secretary, Ministry of Defense, to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of disability pension in accordance with Regulation 173 of the Army Pension Regulations 1961 and Appendix-II contained therein.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Ministry of Defense did not comply with the directions of the court in reconsidering the case of the petitioner. The court found that the Medical Board did not examine the petitioner and submitted a report to the government that the disease was not attributable to the Military service. The court also found that the Ministry of Defense interpreted and applied the Regulations in a narrow compass, bereft from a feeling of sympathy, compassion, and humanitarianism, in a most arbitrary and irrational manner.
Issues: 1. Whether the Ministry of Defense complied with the directions of the High Court in reconsidering the case of the petitioner for grant of disability pension? 2. Whether the Medical Board examined the petitioner and submitted a report to the government that the disease was not attributable to the Military service? 3. Whether the Ministry of Defense interpreted and applied the Regulations in a narrow compass, bereft from a feeling of sympathy, compassion, and humanitarianism, in a most arbitrary and irrational manner?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the Ministry of Defense did not comply with the directions of the court in reconsidering the case of the petitioner. The court found that the Medical Board did not examine the petitioner and submitted a report to the government that the disease was not attributable to the Military service. The court also found that the Ministry of Defense interpreted and applied the Regulations in a narrow compass, bereft from a feeling of sympathy, compassion, and humanitarianism, in a most arbitrary and irrational manner. 2. The court held that the Ministry of Defense should have interpreted and applied the Regulations in a broad framework to dispense with justice, instead it were quoted and applied in a narrow compass, bereft from a feeling of sympathy, compassion and humanitarianism, in a most arbitrary ad irrational manner.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition and issued a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the letter dated 31st July, 1986 contained in Annexure-IV and letter dated 20th December, 1995 contained in Annexure-VIII passed by Ministry of Defense, Government of India. The case of the petitioner was remitted for reconsideration by the Ministry of Defense for the grant of disability pension, for passing afresh appropriate order in the light of the observations made by the court. The Ministry of defense Government of India was further directed to dispose of the appeal within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
( 2 ) AFTER the success of operation Vijay, the entire country has showered tribute and homage to the departed soldiers who lost their lives, and also saluted the bravery of the soldiers who in difficult mountain terrain where the temperature was below the freezing point successfully repelled the onslaught of the intruders.
( 3 ) NOW the time has come when the attitude and behavior of the Army Officers and the Defence Ministry towards soldiers should change. No doubt discipline and sterness is the hall mark of Military service but it does not mean that the soldiers who are separated from their families to guard the border states, thousand of miles away from their homes and are often subjected to mental stress and strain be allowed to be abandoned, if they are discharged from military service on account of any disability which is attributable to the military service. Their cases for grant of disability pension deserve sympathatic and compassionate consideration. Undoubtedly, the rules and orders, in that regard Pharsh, which require review, in view of the respect they command, so young men instilled with sense of patriotism, may join the military service without a feeling of insecurity in future.
( 4 ) THE petitioner was initially recruited in the Army on 3rd of june 1975 after being posted at various places at the relevant time was performing his duties in Jammu.
( 5 ) AT the time when he was recruited he was not suffering from any ailment. The Medical Board, which examined him, declared him fit to perform the arduous duty as a soldier. But while he was posted at Patni Top in the district of Udhampur (J and K), the petitioner suffered from neurosis, may be due to stress and strain to which a soldier is bound to be effected due to separation from his family.
( 6 ) AS soon as his illness was detected he was transferred to chandigarh but his condition aggravated. Thereafter he was shifted to Command Hospital at Lucknow. He was discharged from Military service due to disability in category EEE which according to the petitioner was permanent one.
( 7 ) IN the counter affidavit it was not denied that while performing the difficult and hard duties at Jammu he was posted at patni Top in the district of Udhampur but it was contended that it was not on high altitude. It seems that the authorities that have passed the orders have no knowledge about the topography that it was not on high altitude. It seems that the authorities that have passed the orders have no knowledge about the topography of udhampur district or Patni Top in Jammu and Kashmir which is at a high altitude. If it is assumed that he was not posted on a high altitude, even then owing to aloofness from the home and the family, a soldier may be subjected to such illness which is evident from the averments made in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit where it has been stated that the petitioner was enrolled in the Army Corps of signals on 3rd of June, 1975 by Recruiting Officer, Bareilly. After having rendered seven years and twenty six days service in the army, the petitioner was discharged from service on 29th June, 1962 (A. N.) under Army Rule 13 (3) III (iii) having been invalidated and boarded out from service by the Invaliding Medical Board due to disability "neurosis DEPRESSIVE REACTION (300), in low medical category eee. Degree of disablement was assessed at 30% for two years by the properly constituted invaliding medical board.
( 8 ) THE petitioner staked a claim in respect of grant of disability pension. His application was forwarded by the Officer incharge, Signal Records, Jabalpur to Controller of Defence accounts (Pension) rejected the claim regarding pension in respect of the petitioner by means of his order dated 21st September, 1982. The petitioner thereafter approached the Officer-in-Charge, Signal records, Jabalpur by making a representation/ Appea
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.