Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
UMA NATH SINGH & S.R. SEN, JJ.
Union of India – Appellant
Vs.
Satya Narayan – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 214 of 2013 & W.A. No. 57 of 2014
Decided On : 22.4.2015
Disability Pension - Service Injury - Assam Rifles Rules, 1985, Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules - Rule 3-A(1)(a), Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 - The court discussed the applicability of the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules and the entitlement to disability pension for a service injury suffered by the respondent during training. The court highlighted the requirement of disability being attributable to government service and the distinction between disability pension and invalid pension. The court affirmed the judgment and dismissed the writ appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a member of Assam Rifles, suffered a service injury during training and was discharged from service on medical grounds. He claimed disability pension under the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, which was allowed by the single Judge. The appellants challenged the judgment in the writ appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's disability was attributable to government service, making him eligible for disability pension under Rule 3-A(1)(a) of the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules. The court also emphasized the distinction between disability pension and invalid pension under Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
Issues: The issues revolved around the eligibility of the respondent for disability pension under the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, the applicability of Rule 3-A(1)(a), and the interpretation of the service injury suffered during training.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent's disability was attributable to government service, meeting the eligibility criteria for disability pension under the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules. The court also clarified the distinction between disability pension and invalid pension, emphasizing the requirement of disability being connected to the service.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the judgment allowing the respondent's claim for disability pension and dismissed the writ appeal filed by the appellants.
1. Mr R Deb Nath, learned CGC, appears for the appellant.
No one appears for the respondent.
We have heard learned counsel for appellants and perused the pleadings of writ appeal.
2. This writ appeal has been filed against judgment and order dated 22.4.2014, passed by learned single Judge in WP(C) No.214 of 2013, whereby, the writ petition was allowed while holding that since injury suffered by respondent (writ petitioner) was attributable to service he is entitled to get disability pension under the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules. It was also directed to pay the disability pension to the respondent (writ petitioner) within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
3. The fact of the case is that the respondent (herein), TC No.68775 (G/5000649) Ex Rct/GD Satyanarayan was enrolled in Assam Rifles on 12th March 2004. He was informed at the time of his enrolment into Assam Rifles, by the Presiding Officer of the Recruitment team that in case he is found unfit to become an efficient soldier during course of training, he will be liable to be discharged from service. An undertaking signed by the respondent (herein) to that effect at the time of his enrolment states that “certified that I am aware about the fact that in case of my being found unfit to become an efficient soldier during the course of my training, I am liable to be discharged from service. I do not enjoy any privilege of Government servant till attested as Rifleman. The above fact has been briefed by the Presiding Officer at the time of my enrolment.”
4. In terms of Rule 4 of Assam Rifles Rules, 1985 (para 4) the Director General Assam Rifles is empowered to issue order and instructions to regulate the working of the Force. In view of the powers derived from the above Rules, Policy Instructions No.I [36011/40/92-TRG/1821] dated 14th November 1992 and as amended from time to time has been formulated to regulate the training, relegation and discharge of recruits who are unable to continue/complete their training, due to being placed in Low Medical Category (EEE) by Medical Boards convened on recommendation of Specialist Doctors of Service Hospitals and other competent Medical Authorities.
5. Upon enrolment in Assam Rifles, the respondent (herein) was put under training at No. 1 Training Battalion, Assam Rifles Training Centre and School, Dimapur for basic Training. While he was undergoing the basic Military training, he had sustained injury “FRACTURE NECK OF FEMUR LT (OPTD)” and was referred to 151 Base Hospital Guwahati (Assam) for further treatment. He was operated at 151 Base Hospital. The Medical Specialist placed the respondent (herein) in Low Medical Category A-5 which refers to severe derangement of functional capacity and renders a person permanently unfit for duties. Accordingly, he was discharged from service on Medical Grounds w.e.f. 30th April 2005 (AN). As per Medical Board proceedings, the disability of the petitioner was assessed to be 20% attributable to service.
6. The respondent (herein) was cleared all his dues by the appellants on 12.05.2005 and 04.06.2005. He sent a legal notice dated 07.08.2008 for release of the disability pension but the same was not acted upon. However, vide letter dated 10.10.2008, the representation was rejected and a reply was sent as the respondent (herein) was staying in Delhi, approached the Delhi High Court but the same was rejected on the ground that the respondent (herein) should have approached the Army Tribunal. However, as he was a member of Para Military Force his claim could not have been maintained before the Army Tribunal. Thus, the respondent (herein) once again approached the High Court of Delhi by filing WP(C) No.4589/2010, but the same was rejected on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter vide order dated
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
