Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition for setting aside the order dated 07-03-2019, as passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (‘Tribunal’), whereby Respondent 1’s claim for the grant of disability pension was allowed, the Division Bench of Sureshwar Thakur* and Sudeepti Sharma, JJ., stated that the army authorities had chosen to relieve themselves from onerous obligation of providing disability pension to Respondent 1. The acceptance of Respondent 1’s plea for his release on compassionate grounds, had resulted in army authorities escaping their onerous statutory obligations.
The Court stated that rendering the law laid down in Sukhvinder Singh v. Union of India, , (‘Sukhvinder Singh’s case’) inapplicable on Respondent 1, merely because of his plea of release on compassionate ground, would be gross injustice because if otherwise the soldier was unfit to be retained in service, he was naturally required to be bestowed the benefit of disability pension. Further, no adverse remarks were awarded to Respondent 1, during the term of his serving in the Army. Thus, the Court dismissed the present writ petition and upheld the order passed by the Tribunal.
Background
In the present case, Respondent 1 was enrolled in Indian Army on 31-03-1988 in a fit state of health and was discharged from service on 30-11-2007 before completion of terms of engagement at his own request on extreme compassionate grounds. During his service, he incurred the disability of ‘Sensori Neural Hearing Loss B/L-H90’ which was assessed by the Release Medical Board as less than 20% for life and was also declared to become aggravated by rendition of military service.
The disability element claim of the respondent was rejected by the Competent Authority on the ground that the disability was assessed as less than 20%. Respondent 1 submitted first appeal dated 07-07-2008 which was rejected by the Department vide letter dated 11-12-2008. Thereafter, Respondent 1 filed an application before the Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal relied on ‘Sukhvinder Singh’s case’ (supra) and opined that the disability which had been assessed by the Release Medical Board at less than 20% could be deemed to be 20% and rounded off to 50%.
Thus, the Tribunal held that Respondent 1 was entitled to the arrears of disability pension at the rate of 50% with effect from 25-06-2014 on which date right was accrued to him. Feeling aggrieved from the order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner filed the present petition.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court observed that in Sukhvinder Singh’s case (supra), it was held that even if the solider was discharged on account of the assessed percentage of disability being below 20 %, yet the said percentage of disability was construed to be at 20%, the same was to be rounded off to 50%.
The Court stated that in the larger interest of justice, if ultimately Respondent 1 had been permitted to be released from service on compassionate grounds, the said release did not render the objection of law made in Sukhvinder Singh’s case (supra). Rendering the law laid down in Sukhvinder Singh’s case (supra) inapplicable on Respondent 1, merely because of his plea of release on compassionate ground, would be gross injustice because if otherwise the soldier was unfit to be retained in service, he was naturally required to be bestowed the benefit of disability pension. Further, no adverse remarks were awarded to Respondent 1, during the term of his serving in the Army.
The Court stated that the army authorities had chosen to relieve themselves from onerous obligation of providing disability pension to Respondent 1. The acceptance of Respondent 1’s plea for his release on compassionate grounds, had resulted in army authorities escaping their onerous statutory obligations. Furthermore, the Court observed that the perusal of impugned order revealed, that the applicant was held entitled to the arrears of disability pension at the rate of 50 % with effect from 25-06-2014, which was the date of the pronouncement of the verdict in Sukhvinder Singh’s case (supra).
The Court stated that even though the judgment was passed in Sukhvinder Singh’s case (supra) on 25-06-2014, the benefits could not be denied to the present respondent merely on the ground that the said case had only prospective effect and not retrospective effect. Therefore, the Court stated that beneficent effect of the said declaration of law would be applicable to the soldiers, irrespective of the date of pronouncement of the said judgment.
Thus, the Court dismissed the present writ petition and upheld the order passed by the Tribunal.
[Union of India v. Jarnail Singh, CWP 14751 of 2024, decided on 27-11-2024]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Sureshwar Thakur
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Dharm Chand Mittal, Advocate;
For the Respondents: Rajesh Sehgal, Advocate.
The post appeared first on .