Upendra Kumar vs The Union of India and others

Aparesh Kumar Singh

Heard Counsel for the parties.

Petitioner has sought more compensation on account of 75% disability incurred by him during the course of his duty in Kargil Area while posted under the respondent Border Security Force in the year 1995.

Counsel for the petitioner has stated that another person constable T. Kujur who has sustained 75% disablement, was granted compensation of Rs. 11,00,556/- while a sum of Rs. 5,37,960/- was paid to the petitioner for his disability, although T. Kujur was declared 65% disabled.

The respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit in which they have furnished a chart at Paragraph 5 (VI) giving particulars of the petitioner as well as the constable T. Kujur as to the pay drawn by them on the date of the Medical Board, percentage of disability on the date of medical examination, disability pension for 100% disability, the amount admissible for disability, commutation factor and the final calculation of compensation. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that while the petitioner was assessed as suffering from 75% disability on the date of the Medical Board, whereas constable T. Kujur was suffering from 100% disability on the date of the Medical Board held on 24th November, 2004. As per the formula uniformly applied, calculation of compensation of the petitioner comes to Rs. 5,37,966/- while in respect of other person comes to Rs. 11,00,556/-.

Counsel for the petitioner however, has assailed the calculation of the compensation by the respondents by alleging that the other person was only 65% disabled but has been shown to be 100% disabled.

The petitioner has although filed a rejoinder to the said counter affidavit but has not been able to dispute the assertion made by the respondents in respect of the pay of the petitioner and constable T. Kujur and the extent of disability assessed in respect of them on the dates of medical examination indicated in the said chart.

Counsel for the petitioner stated that the constable T. Kujur has been shown to have been getting a pay of Rs. 3800+1900 while the petitioner has only been shown to have been getting a pay of Rs. 3575/- but other amount of dearness allowance is not reflected in the calculation chart.

However, in spite of having opportunity to rebut the same and in spite of the fact that rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, no grievance has been made in respect of the pay shown in the calculation chart said to have been drawn by the petitioner.

After having heard counsel for the parties and having gone through the relevant pleadings and materials on record, the grievance of the petitioner appears to be misplaced as the respondents have shown to have adopted an uniform yardstick for assessment of compensation and as per which, the petitioner was found to be 75% disabled while constable T. Kujur was 100% disabled on the date of their medical examination. By applying formula uniformly in respect of these two persons, the total compensation amount has been arrived at and paid to the petitioner as well as to T. Kujur. I therefore do not find any infirmity in the action of the respondents in paying compensation to the petitioner on the basis of the extent of disability suffered by him. In that view of the matter, the petitioner having failed to make out a case for interference, no relief can be granted. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.