HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Praveer Bhatnagar, J
BHAGIRATH SINGH (DECEASED) S/O SH. PREMA RAM – Appellant
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13218/2016
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the petitioner's service and medical discharge due to invalidation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. dispute over eligibility for pension without completing the 10-year qualifying service period. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. entitlement to pension upon invalidation regardless of qualifying service period under rule 49(2). (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. granting of pensionary benefits to the legal heirs of the deceased employee. (Para 13 , 14) |
Judgment
1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-
“It is therefore humbly prayed that the respondents be directed to release the disability pension from the date of discharge to the petitioner, i.e. 20/10/1973, and the cost of litigation may be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”
2. During the course of litigation, the legal heirs of the deceased-petitioner Bhagirath were taken on record.
3. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that the deceased-petitioner Bhagirath Singh was appointed as a Constable in the Gujarat Police on 01.09.1964 as a State Reserve Police Force, Gr. III. Before passing the Medical Fitness Examination, the petitioner undergone basic Police training at SRPF Godhra, and at the time of induction, the deceased-petitioner was not suffering from any disease/ailment. Thereafter, the deceased-petitioner was inducted into the CRPF on 01.04.1968, and on 20.10.1973, his services were invalidated. The deceased-petitioner has claimed the disability pension from the date of his discharge, as well as the cost of litigation.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner’s services were invalidated on the report of the Medical Board, which opined that the petitioner was suffering from “Chronic Bronchities with airway obstruction” and unfit to serve in the Police Department.
5. It is contended that when the petitioner was inducted in the initial services, he was medically examined and found to be fit, the invalidation of the petitioner occurred during the course of his employment and petitioner is entitled to get the pension under Rule 49(2) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1972’).
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. P.A. Thomas [SLP (C) 20339/2011 dated 14.03.2019, whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:-
“2. In the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972-
(i) in rule 38, for sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2), the following sub-rules shall respectively be substituted, namely:-
“(1) The case of a Government servant acquiring a disability, where the provisions of section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 SLP (C) 20339/2011 (49 of 2016) are applicable, shall be governed by the provisions of the said section: Provided that such an employee shall produce a disability certificate from the competent authority as prescribed under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017.
(2) If a Government servant, in a case where the provisions of section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of 2016) are not applicable, retires from the service on account of any bodily or mental infirmity which permanently incapacitates him for the service, he may be granted invalid pension in accordance with rule 49:”
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further places reliance upon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3868/1994-Kharta Ram Vs. Union of India & Anr., wherein after placing reliance upon the judgment of Union of India & Ors. Vs. P.A. Thomas (supra), the Coordinate Bench allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to release the pension.
8. Contrarily, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner is not entitled to the pension under Rule 49(2) of the Rules of 1972. He further submits that the petitioner has not completed the qualifying services of 10 years. It is
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.