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

2009 Supreme(UK) 638

2010 (1) UAD 534
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Bist
Writ Petition No. 857 of 2008 (S/S)
EX. SEPOY VIPIN KUMAR – Petitioner
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – Respondents
Decided on : 24.12.2009

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Lalit Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Smt. Anjali Bhargava, Standing Counsel

Headnote:Pension regulation for the army, 1961, Regulation 173, Entitlement Rules for casuality Pensionary Awards, 1982, Rules 3, 5 — Disability Pension — In cases, if an individual at the time of entry in service is found medically fit and subsequently during service period becomes medically unfit for service due to disability — The said disability will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen from service and such individual is entitled for disability pension — If Medical Board finds disability of an individual not attributed to or aggravated by Military Service, then in such case the Medical Board is required to give reasons for its opinion — Reasons should be transparent and self-explanatory — Petition, accordingly allowed and the respondents, directed to reconsider the matter of the petitioner for grant of disability pension by obtaining fresh report from the Medical Board. (Paras 15 to 19)

        isa'ku jsX;qys'ku Qkj vkehZ] 1961] jsX;wys'ku 173 vkSj ,saVkbfVyesaV #Yl Qkj dSTofyVh isa'kujh vokMZl] 1982] fu;e 3] 5 & fodykaxrk isa'ku & mu ekeyksa esa] tc lfoZl esa izos'k djus ds le; ;fn dksbZ O;fDr fpfdRlh; vk/kkj ij fQV ik;k tkrk gS vkSj lfoZl vof/k ds nkSjku ckn esa fodykaxrk ds dkj.k fpfdRlh; :i ls vufQV gks tkrk gS rks ml dfFkr fodykaxrk dks lsok ls mRié gqvk ekuk tk,xk vkSj ,slk O;fDr fodykaxrk isa'ku dk vf/kdkjh cu tkrk gS & ;fn esfMdy cksMZ fdlh O;fDr dh fodykaxrk dks lsuk dh lfoZl ds dkj.k vkjksi.kh; vFkok fcxM+h gqbZ ugha ekurk gS rks ,sls izdj.k esa esfMdy cksMZ dks viuh jk; dh iqf"V esa dkj.k crkuk visf{kr gS & tks Hkh dkj.k fn;s tk, os ikjyf{kr vkSj lqLi"V gksus pkfg, & rnuqlkj ;kfpdk Lohdkj dh xbZ vkSj mRrjnkrkvksa dks ;kph ds ekeys ij iqufoZpkj djus dk funsZ'k esfMdy cksMZ ls iqu% fjiksZV ysdj fodykaxrk isa'ku nsus gsrq fn;k x;kA

        ¼izLrj 15 ls 19½

JUDGMENT

Present petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs :-

“A) To issue a writ of certiorari to quash the orders dated 10.11.2005 (annexure 10), 28th December, 2006 (annexure 12) and 10th July, 2008 (annexure 14), passed by respondent nos. 3, 2 and 1 respectively, holding the same as illegal and ultra vires of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961;

B) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent no. 3 to treat the disability of the petitioner as attributable to the military service and grant him, with effect from 15.01.2005, the disability pension with the disability element at 100%, service element at 2/3rd of the full pension as relevant to petitioner’s rank/grade, and ‘constant attendance allowance’ at the applicable rate and issue the Pension Payment Order (PPO) accordingly, within a peremptory time period to be fixed by the Hon’ble Court in its own wisdom;

C) To award interest at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from 15.01.2005 on the amounts that would become payable to the petitioner, in consequence of grant of the relief prayed for in the preceding prayer;

D) To award the exemplary/adequate compensation to the petitioner as against the respondents for causing inexplicable and immeasurable physical, mental, financial and emotional injury and loss to him while seeking justice from the respondents for past three years;

E) To award the cost of this petition; AND to award any other relief which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Brief facts of the case, inter alia, are that on 03.12.2001 the petitioner having been found medically fit was enrolled as a soldier in the MAHAR Regiment (Infantry). During his recruit training, the petitioner was awarded a certificate of the ‘all round best recruit’. Thereafter, the petitioner was retained in the training centre till May, 2004 for participating in the rifle shooting competition. During the period from 2002 to 2004 the petitioner was found medically fit in SHAPE-1 medical category i.e. the highest degree of fitness. In the month of May, 2004 the petitioner was posted to 4 MAHAR at Tangdhar in Jammu and Kashmir and while participating in the rifle shooting practice/competition, he got sprayed into his right eye a very small amount of rifle oil from the breach block of the rifle resulting vision of his right eye to be hazy. Thereafter, the petitioner found that the vision of his left eye was also getting adversely affected. On 21.06.2004, the petitioner reported to the Medical Officer of 328 Field Ambulance who referred him to 92 Base Hospital at Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir for treatment. Till 26.06.2004 the petitioner remained admitted in the said base hospital. After thorough examination by the Eye Specialist, the Eye Specialist gave a finding that the petitioner was unfit for duty requiring good binocular vision and he downgraded the petitioner permanently to medical category E-3 for eye factor. In the month of November, 2004, when the superior officers of the petitioner found that the petitioner had nearly lost his vision in both the eyes, he got admitted to 166 Military Hospital on 16.11.2004. After remaining under treatment for a period of one and half months, when the Eye Specialist found that petitioner’s vision could not be retrieved, the petitioner was downgraded to permanent medical category E-5 by a Medical Board and invalided out of service and sent him home. The petitioner was also issued a disability certificate by the Officer Commanding of 166 Military Hospital on 13.01.2005 mentioning therein that the petitioner had been invalided out of service with100% disability due to ‘HYPERMETROPIC AMBLYOPIA RETROBULBAR NEURITIS WITH CONDUCTION DEFECT (NEURONAL) BOTH EYES’.

3. Thereafter, on making query from respondent no. 4 about the grant of disability pension to petitioner, the respondent no. 4 informed that the claim of the petitioner for

























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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