The only issue which arises for determination in the
present appeal is with regard to the grant of disability
pension to the appellant.
The appellant was enrolled in the Corps of Signals of the
Indian Army as a Radio Mechanic on 18 February 1971.
On 18 August 1981, he was discharged from military
service under Army Rule 13(3) on account of being placed in a
low medical category.
The case of the appellant is that he suffered from a
Chronic Duodenal Ulcer as a result of his participation in
Operation Cactus Lilly in 1971.
The appellant moved the Armed Forces Tribunal1 for the
1 “Tribunal”
grant of war injury pension. The Tribunal declined to accede
to the plea for the grant of war injury pension on the ground
that it was payable only in respect of participation in
operations or in the active line of duty. In the present case,
it was the view of the Tribunal that the nature of the
disability was not attributable to any such participation in
action. This view of the Tribunal is correct.
On 26 November 2018, the following order was passed by
this Court:
“Delay condoned.
Application seeking leave to appeal is allowed.
The submission which has been urged on behalf
of the petitioner is that his claim for the
grant of disability pension for the period
between 1996 and 2014 has not been considered
since it was in 2014 that he was granted the
disability pension for the period thereafter.
Issue notice confined to this question
returnable within four weeks.
Liberty to serve the additional copy on the
Central Agency.
Application for exemption from filing certified
copy of the impugned judgment is allowed.”
Notice was confined to the issue as to whether the
appellant should be granted disability pension between 1996 and
2014.
In the counter affidavit which has been filed on behalf
of the respondents, a chart has been submitted, making a
reference to the Re-Survey Medical Boards which had assessed
the extent of disability so as to facilitate a decision on the
claim for the grant of disability pension.
The chart indicates that initially the extent of
disability was determined at 40% for two years with effect from
14 July 1985. Subsequently, the disability was assessed at 20%
for two years with effect from 17 July 1987; at 30% for five
years with effect from 17 July 1990; and at 20% for ten years
with effect from 23 March 1994. However, it appears that the
PCDA(P), Allahabad re-assessed the disability at less than 20%
on 8 May 1995. As a result of this, the appellant did not
receive disability pension with effect from 24 March 1995.
With effect from 30 January 2014, the disability of the
appellant was assessed at 20% on a permanent basis for life by
the Military Hospital, Danapur Cantt. The above narration of
facts would indicate that the position as it stands pursuant to
the assessment done by the Military Hospital with effect from
30 January 2014 is that the appellant suffers from 20%
disability which is assessed for life. He has received
disability pension thereafter.
In this background, we are of the view that the denial of
disability pension to the appellant for the period between 24
March 1995 and 30 January 2014 was misconceived. The disability
element has already been rounded off in pursuance of the
previous order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal.
We accordingly, allow the appeal and direct that the
appellant shall be granted arrears on account of disability
pension in accordance with the applicable rates prevalent at
the relevant time between 24 March 1995 and 30 January 2014.
The computation shall be carried out and arrears shall be
paid over to the appellant within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of this order.
The civil appeal is accordingly, allowed. No costs.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Civil Appeal No(s). 11485/2018
MADAN PRASAD SINHA@ SANATAN BABA Appellant(s)
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 08-04-2019 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
For Appellant(s)
Mr. J.S. Attri, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Narender Singh, Adv.
Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
Mr. Chandra Nand Jha, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv.
Mr. B.K. Satija, Adv.
Ms. Alka Agrawal, Adv.
Mr. Tanvir Nayar, Adv.
Mr. A.K. Sharma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
The Civil Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed reportable
order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(Signed reportable order is placed on the file)