Army Authorities Escaping Onerous Legal Obligation: Punjab & Haryana HC Upholds Grant Of 'Disability Pension' To Officer With Hearing Loss
Aiman J. Chishti
30 Nov 2024 5:20 PM IST
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld Armed Forces Tribunal's decision (AFT) to grant "disability pension" to an army officer who during the course of his service developed loss of hearing which was assessed by the medical board as less than 20% for life and was also declared to become aggravated by rendition of military service.
In doing so the court said that the benefits of the Supreme Court's verdict in Sukhvinder Singh Vs. Union of India and Others (2014) will be applicable to the officer, wherein the apex court had held that wherever a member of the armed forces is invalided out of service due to disability, it perforce has to be assumed that his disability was found to be above twenty per cent.
A division bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said, "Though the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Sukhwinder Singh Vs. UOI and others (supra) was passed on 25.06.2014. However, prima facie, though the benefits thereof cannot be denied to the present respondent merely on the ground that it has only prospective effect and that it has no retrospective effect...it appears that, the acceptance of the plea (supra), has ensued from the Army Authorities, reiteratedly untenably escaping the onerous statutory obligation cast upon them, to award to the present respondent the disability pension, which otherwise in terms of the supra expostulation of law, he became entitled to become so endowed".
These observations were made while hearing the plea filed by Union Government whereby it challenged AFT's decision to grant disability pension to the soldier to the officer in light of Sukhvinder Singh case.
The respondent Jarnail Singh was enrolled in the Indian Army on March 31, 1988 in a fit state of health and was discharged from service on November 30, 2007 before completion of terms of engagement at his own request on extreme compassionate grounds.
During the course of 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 Singh was rejected by the Competent Authority, thus on the ground that the disability was assessed as less than 20%. He then filed a first appeal on July 7,2008 which was rejected by the Department on December 11, 2008.
After six years, the respondent officer filed a petition before the Armed Forces Tribunal.
On March 7, 2019, the Tribunal ruled in his favour, relying on the Sukhwinder Singh v. Union of India, which stated that disabilities assessed below 20% could be rounded off to 50% for pension eligibility. Aggrieved by this order the Union moved the High Court.
Before the high court the Union Government argued that Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, only applies to those invalided out of service due to disability, not to those discharged on compassionate grounds. It claimed that the reliance of the AFT on Sukhwinder Singh was misplaced as the verdict was applicable on cases where the soldier was invalided from service but was not applicable in case the soldier was discharged from service on compassionate grounds/domestic difficulties.
After examining the submissions, the Court rejected Union's argument and stated that the respondent's disability was aggravated by military service, making him eligible for a disability pension even without being invalided out.
It noted that denying benefits would lead to injustice, particularly since no adverse remarks were made during the respondent's service.
The Court also clarified that although the decision in Sukhwinder Singh Vs. UOI and others was passed in 2014, though the benefits thereof cannot be denied to the Officer merely on the ground that it has only prospective effect and that it has no retrospective effect.
"Resultantly the beneficent effect of the said declaration of law, thus though is also prima facie, to be endowed to the soldiers, irrespective of the date of pronouncement of the said judgment. If the said endowment is not made, thereupons, prima facie, to the considered mind of this Court, an arbitrary cut off date would become employed inter-se those soldiers who became discharged prior to the making of the verdict..., thus with those soldiers who became discharged subsequent to the passing of the verdict...," it opined.
Upholding and affirming the Tribunal's order the high court said, "Resultantly, this Court is constrained to after dismissing the writ petition uphold the verdict made by the Tribunal concerned, whereby, the arrears of disability pension have been restricted to the applicant w.e.f. 25.06.2014".
Title: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. EX HAV JARNAIL SINGH AND ANR.
Mr. Dharm Chand Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners/UOI.
Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
