Injury Sustained While Undergoing Basic Training Attributable To Service Conditions, Employee Eligible For Disability Pension: Meghalaya High Court
A single judge bench of the Meghalaya High Court comprising of Chief Justice H.S. Thangkhiew, while deciding a writ petition held that if an employee sustained an injury while undergoing basic training, it is attributable to the service conditions and therefore, employee is eligible for the disability pension.Background Facts The employee was recruited into the Assam Rifles on March 12,...
A single judge bench of the Meghalaya High Court comprising of Chief Justice H.S. Thangkhiew, while deciding a writ petition held that if an employee sustained an injury while undergoing basic training, it is attributable to the service conditions and therefore, employee is eligible for the disability pension.
Background Facts
The employee was recruited into the Assam Rifles on March 12, 1986. While undergoing basic training, he sustained injuries to his legs on April 28, 1986. As a result, he suffered a 40% disability. Due to this injury, he was medically boarded out of service and discharged on April 1, 1988, after serving for 2 years and 20 days.
Following his discharge, the employee sought a disability pension on the grounds that his injury was attributable to service conditions. However, the respondents (Union of India and Assam Rifles) denied the pension. The respondent emphasized that employee did not have the minimum qualifying service of 10 years required to be eligible for pension and that the extent of his disability (40%) was below the 60% threshold required for disability pension.
Although the respondents initially communicated to the employee in May 2020 that he was eligible for a disability pension under the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939, they later backtracked. In July 2022, the respondents issued a revised communication stating that the employee did not qualify for the pension as his disability was below 60% and he did not meet the qualifying service requirement.
Despite these rejections, the employee argued that his injury was clearly service-related and that he was entitled to a disability pension under the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939. Aggrieved by the same, the employee filed the writ petition in 2022, seeking directions to the respondents for the release of his disability pension.
It was argued by the employee that he was entitled to disability pension under the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939, as his injury, which caused 40% disability, was directly attributable to service conditions. He maintained that his injury occurred while undergoing basic training in the Assam Rifles and was a service-related disability.
It was argued by the respondents that the employee was not entitled to a disability pension because he did not fulfill the minimum qualifying service requirement of 10 years. The employee had only completed 2 years and 20 days of service, which was insufficient to grant a pension under the relevant rules.
It was further argued by the respondents that the employee was not entitled to any relief due to the significant delay in approaching the court. The employee had been discharged from service in 1988 but filed the writ petition only in 2022, over three decades later. They contended that this long delay in seeking relief was unreasonable delay, and therefore, the petition should be dismissed.
Findings of the Court
The court acknowledged that the employee's injury was sustained while undergoing basic training in the Assam Rifles and was therefore attributable to service conditions.
The case of Union of India & Anr. v. Shri Satyanarayan (WA No. 57 of 2014), was relied upon by the court, where a similarly situated individual was granted a disability pension despite the objections regarding qualifying service and disability percentage. In this case it was observed by the court that the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, specifically Rule 3-A, establishes that if a disability is attributable to government service, the claimant is eligible for disability pension. Here the respondent suffered a 20% disability during training, making him eligible for disability pension. The argument that the injury occurred during training and thus was not linked to duty was rejected, as the respondent was medically fit at recruitment. The injury was deemed accidental and unforeseen, not the result of negligence. It was further observed that a Ministry of Personnel Office Memorandum from 1997 stated that for a lower degree of disability, the minimum pension is proportionately reduced. Therefore, the argument by Assam Rifles that disability under 60% disqualifies the respondent from pension was dismissed.
The court rejected the respondents' argument that the employee's disability percentage, which was 40%, was below the required 60%.
However, considering the time taken for the employee to approach the Court for seeking relief, the court considered the principles established in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648. In that case, it was held by the Supreme Court that in pension matters, relief could still be granted despite delay, but limited to a certain period preceding the filing of the case.
Accordingly, it was ruled by the court that although the employee delayed filing the writ petition, the disability pension would be granted from three years before the filing of the petition (i.e., from 2019 onwards).
It was directed by the court to the respondents to compute the pension payable to the employee, along with arrears, and complete the process within three months. The disability pension was to be granted starting from three years before the filing of the writ petition (2022). With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was allowed.
Case No. : WP(C). No. 341 of 2022
Counsel for the Petitioner : S. Pandey, Adv.
Counsel for the Respondents : N. Mozika, DSGI with K. Gurung, Adv.