Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
Tej Singh Mehta - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & others - Respondents
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 979 of 2006
Decided On : 17.09.2014
Disability Pension - Voluntary Retirement - The petitioner, a Constable in Assam Rifles, sustained gunshot injuries resulting in the amputation of his left leg. He voluntarily retired and later sought disability pension, which was denied. The court held that the petitioner had been given all benefits and treatment by the Assam Rifles, including voluntary pension, and that the denial of disability pension was proper considering the circumstances.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Constable in Assam Rifles, sustained gunshot injuries resulting in the amputation of his left leg. He voluntarily retired and later sought disability pension, which was denied.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had been given all benefits and treatment by the Assam Rifles, including voluntary pension, and that the denial of disability pension was proper considering the circumstances. The writ petition was dismissed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, who voluntarily retired after sustaining gunshot injuries and the amputation of his left leg, was entitled to disability pension from the Assam Rifles.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner had been given all benefits and treatment by the Assam Rifles, including voluntary pension, and that the denial of disability pension was proper considering the circumstances.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
1. On the grounds urged and in the interest of justice, the restoration application (MCC 726 of 2014) is allowed.
2. Order dated 13.08.2014 is hereby recalled. The writ petition is restored to its original number.
3. The petitioner was a Constable in Assam Rifles. While he was posted in Assam in 1984, he sustained gunshot injuries while apprehending terrorists, as a result his left leg was amputated. He was, however, given medical treatment and retained in service though he was given lighter assignments, in consideration with his medical conditions. On 31.07.1991 the petitioner took voluntary retirement from the Assam Rifles and was given his pension and all other service benefits including post retrial benefits.
4. Thereafter i.e. on his voluntary retirement the petitioner started making representations before higher authorities and it seems that he moved a representation even to the President of India and the matter was referred thereafter to the Directorate General, Assam Rifles for disability pension, and consequently the Directorate General, Assam Rifles passed an order on 16.08.1995, which reads as under:-
DISABILITY PENSION
1. Reference your petition dated 10-3-95 addressed to the President of India received from Ministry of Defence, New Delhi.
2. Your case has been thoroughly examined and found that you had proceeded on voluntary retirement at your own request and not due to invalidation from service. Hence, you are not eligible for disability pension.
5. Not satisfied with the said order, petitioner continued to make representations even thereafter and claimed disability pension. Ultimately an order was passed on 06.01.2001, by the Directorate General, Assam Rifles, Pension Section, through its Record Officer. The entire order is as under:-
GRANT OF DISABILITY PENSION
1. Your representation dated 27 Mar 2001 has been received through MHA and examined in details and found that you have retired from service on voluntary pension at your own request with all benefits attached to the voluntary pension scheme i.e. 5 years weightage of service was added to your total qualifying service for the purpose of calculation of pension/gratuity.
2. Though you sustained a gun shot wound at your left leg but the Medical Board did not recommend your case for disability pension in absence of requisite percentage as per CCS (Extra-ordinary pension) Rules, 1972. However, to give pensionary benefits you were allowed to continue in service to complete twenty years of service on assigning you with light duties. And accordingly, on completion of 20 years of service, you applied for voluntary pension which was granted to you.
3. You are, therefore, advised to desist from approaching the VVIPs/DGAR. In the absence of recommendation of the Medical Board and pre-requisite percentage of disability at that stage of service, the disability pension can not be sanctioned to you.
4. As regards the ex-gratia grant, it is to inform you that the ex-gratia payment is being sanctioned to the Next of kin of the deceased soldier, who died in action, hence you are not eligible for ex-gratia payment.
6. The petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition in the year 2006 which was earlier dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction as no cause of action arose in the territory of Uttarakhand. Aggrieved, the petitioner moved filed a SLP before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the matter has been remanded back to this Court. Consequently the matter is now being heard on merit.
7. According to the petitioner, he had sustained bullet injuries in his left leg and consequently, his left leg was amputated and therefore he was liable to be invalidated from the Assam Rifles and should have been given disability pension. This has been denied to him.
8. This contention of the petitioner is totally misconceived. The petitioner retired voluntarily from Assam Rifles on his own request and consequently was given pension and all other benefits attached to the pension schem
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
