Hav. Raj Mal Singh vs Union of India

R.L. Anand, J.—Hav. Raj Mal Singh has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the respondents and it has been prayed by the petitioner that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing the orders Annexures P3 and P5 issued by the respondent authorities and further a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued against the respondents directing them to give the benefit of disability pension to him as he was invalidated from the military service on account of the injury which he suffered during the course of his duty.

The case set up by the petitioner is that he joined the Army on 1.8.1951. He was medically examined at the time of entry into service and was found medically fit in all respects. On 19.6.1959 he was transferred to Reserve and was again transferred to 668 Construction and Equipment Company (GREF) on 3.10.1960. In the year 1962 he was recalled to join Army during the war when he was serving with GREF and he reported at Kirkee. On 3.12.1971 he was given duty at Ajmer and when he was proceeding on temporary duty to Udaipur he met with an accident and sustained injury. Court of Inquiry confirmed that the injury was fully attributable to the military service. The Medically Board downgraded the petitioner and placed in medical category "C (P)". On 31.7.1973 he was transferred to pension establishment on fulfilling his conditions of enrolment. He served 20 years and 62 days. Since he suffered the disability when he was on duty with the respondent authorities, therefore, he was entitled to the benefit of disability pension also though he is getting the ordinary pension. The grouse of the petitioner is that in spite of the fact that he made representations to the respondent authorities for giving him the benefit of disability pension, he has been deprived of this benefit vide orders which are under challenge. He made representation in the year 1998 but to no effect. Hence the present writ petition.

Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. According to the respondents the injury suffered by the petitioner was neither attributable nor aggravated to the military service and that the decision of the Pension Sanctioning Authority was communicated to the petitioner in the year 1973. The petitioner could file an appeal. He filed the appeal and the same was dismissed in the year 1974. The present writ petition has been filed after a long delay of 15 years. On merits, the stand of the respondents is that the petitioner was not deployed on any temporary duty as alleged by him. He did not meet with any accident. He was attacked by Hazara Singh, an employee of Railway Territorial Army at the residence of Hazara Singh with an iron rod. The disability suffered by the petitioner has occurred in peace area and is not attributable to military service. Therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit or disability pension.

A re-joinder was also filed by the petitioner in which he reiterated the allegations made in the petition by denying those of the written statement.

I have heard Mr. Rajneesh Bansal, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Arvind Moudgil, Advocate on behalf of the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the records of this case.

Two points survive for determination in this writ petition. First is whether the disability suffered by the petitioner is attributable to the army service or not. It is the specific case of the petitioner that a Court of Inquiry was instituted which gave the finding in favour of the petitioner that the disability suffered by him was when he was on duty. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the document dated 3.12.1971, Annexure P7, which clearly certifies that the petitioner was authorised to bring 137 bottles of Rum from NCC GP HQs Udaipur for NCC Units at Ajmer Station. It is also the case of the petitioner that when he was assigned with a temporary duty he met with an accident and suffered injury. In these circumstances, I repel the first contention of the respondents that the disability suffered by the petitioner is not attributable to Army service. The findings of the Court of Inquiry have not been placed on the record to show that the claim of the petitioner is false.

The second point for determination would be from which date the petitioner deserves the benefits of disability pension. It is the common case of the parties that the respondent authorities disapproved the benefit of disability pension to the petitioner in the year 1974 itself. So much so, the petitioner made a representation which was rejected. The impugned orders which are being attacked by the petitioner are of 1976 i.e. 7.2.1976 and 8.3.1977. The petitioner even filed an appeal which was also dismissed. Therefore, cause of action arose to the petitioner somewhere in the year 1977 or 197S. He filed the present writ petition in the year 1999 which has prima facie suffered from delay and laches. Still the petitioner can be given the benefit of 38 months before the filing of the writ petition. Of course, the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefits after the institution of the writ petition. The benefits which have been awarded to the petitioner by this Court shall be paid to him within three months from the receipt of the copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs. The petitioner shall appear before the Re- survey Medical Board as and when called by the respondent authorities.

Petition allowed.