Back
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Tarsem Singh – Respondent
Key Points: - The respondent, invalidated out of Army service in 1983, sought disability pension from the High Court in 1999 [1000432850001]. - A Single Judge directed the grant of disability pension and arrears for 38 months prior to the writ petition [1000432850001]. - The Division Bench allowed the appeal, holding the respondent entitled to pension from the date it fell due (16 years prior) [1000432850002]. - The Supreme Court considered the principles of continuing wrongs and recurring/successive wrongs in service law [1000432850003]. - A continuing wrong is a single wrongful act causing continuing injury, while recurring/successive wrongs occur periodically, each giving a separate cause of action [1000432850003]. - Belated service claims are generally rejected due to delay and laches or limitation, unless based on a continuing wrong [1000432850006]. - An exception to the continuing wrong rule exists if reopening the issue affects settled rights of third parties [1000432850006]. - Claims related to pay or pension re-fixation may be granted despite delay if they don't affect third parties' rights [1000432850006]. - Claims involving seniority or promotion affecting others will be subject to laches/limitation due to delay [1000432850006]. - For consequential relief of arrears, principles of recurring/successive wrongs apply, and relief is normally restricted to three years prior to the writ petition [1000432850006]. - The Supreme Court held that the 16-year delay affected the claim for arrears and the High Court was not justified in directing payment for that period with interest [1000432850007]. - The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Division Bench's order, and restored the Single Judge's order [1000432850008].
ORDER
R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.
Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The respondent while working in the Indian Army was invalidated out of Army service, in medical category, on 13.11.1983. He approached the High Court in 1999 seeking a direction to the appellants to pay him disability pension. A learned Single Judge by order dated 6.12.2000 allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants to grant him disability pension at the rates permissible. In so far as arrears, the relief was restricted to 38 months prior to the filing of the writ petition. The respondent was also directed to appear before the Re-survey Medical Board as and when called upon by the appellants. The appellants did not contest the said decision and granted disability pension to respondents and also released the arrears of disability pension for 38 months.
3. The respondent however was not satisfied. According to him the disability pension ought to be paid from the date it fell due on 13.11.1983. He therefore filed a Letters Patent Appeal. The said appeal was allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court by judgment dated 6.12.2006. The Division Bench held that the respondent was entitled to dis
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
