Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • Col. S.R Kalkal (Retd.), Advocate, ;
  • Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate,
Judges
  • A.K Mathur
  • Chairperson
  • M.L Naidu, A.M
Acts
  • Pension Regulations-Rule 173-Disability
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • Col. S.R Kalkal (Retd.), Advocate, ;
  • Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate,
Judges
  • A.K Mathur
  • Chairperson
  • M.L Naidu, A.M
Acts
  • Pension Regulations-Rule 173-Disability
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Provided Legal Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner was originally enrolled in the regular Army on 21.12.1972 after being found physically and medically fit. He was discharged on 01.04.1991 after completing 19 years of service and was re-enrolled in the Defence Security Corps on 24.04.1991. While serving thereafter, he developed health problems and was ultimately found to suffer from lumbar spondylosis. A Medical Board assessed his disability as 20% and found it aggravated by military service. The petitioner requested grant of disability pension (in addition to service pension) but the Adjutant General refused disability pension by an order dated 30.04.2009 on the ground that he had been discharged at his own request/compassionate grounds and premature discharge on one's own request precluded entitlement to disability pension.

The petitioner filed the present petition seeking grant of disability pension at 50% from the date of discharge and costs for alleged harassment. The petition relied heavily on a Division Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in Mahavir Singh Narwal and the dismissal of Special Leave Petitions by the Supreme Court on 04.01.2008. The petitioner also placed on record other Delhi High Court orders directing re-examination of similar claims and imposing costs where respondents persisted in denying benefits despite settled law.

The Tribunal heard the matter, issued notice, and the respondent's counsel accepted notice. The Tribunal ultimately set aside the Adjutant General's order dated 30.04.2009 and issued directions to grant disability pension and costs as described below.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether a person who is discharged on compassionate grounds or by his own request is entitled to disability pension when a Medical Board finds disability attributable to or aggravated by military service.
  2. Whether the petitioner should be granted monetary costs for harassment caused by the respondents' refusal to implement the settled legal position.
  3. What relief and consequential directions are appropriate where authorities persistently refuse to follow settled decisions of the High Court and Supreme Court on this question.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner urged that he was entitled to disability pension because a Medical Board found 20% disability aggravated by military service and therefore he should receive disability pension along with service pension.
  • He relied on the Division Bench decision in Mahavir Singh Narwal (111 (2004) DLT 550) holding that discharge on compassionate grounds or discharge at the person's own request does not preclude grant of disability pension where the disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service, and on the subsequent dismissal of SLP(s) by the Supreme Court on 04.01.2008 affirming that legal position.
  • The petitioner sought costs (specifically Rs. 25,000/-) for harassment, pointing to prior High Court orders where similar conduct by authorities resulted in an award of costs and directions to re-examine cases in light of settled law.

Respondents' Arguments

  • The Adjutant General's communicated position (order dated 30.04.2009) was that disability pension is not payable to Army personnel released on premature discharge at their own request; therefore the petitioner was not entitled to disability pension.
  • In the course of other High Court proceedings recorded in the opinion, respondents indicated they wished to examine matters and file counter-affidavits, suggesting they sought opportunity to reassess decisions in light of the legal position; however, respondents repeated denials in multiple instances despite prior orders directing re-examination.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Mahavir Singh Narwal v. Union of India, 111 (2004) DLT 550 (Division Bench) Held that discharge on compassionate grounds or discharge at one's own request does not, by itself, bar grant of disability pension where disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service; directed grant of disability pension based on Medical Board assessment. The Tribunal relied on this decision (as relied upon by the petitioner) to conclude the petitioner was entitled to disability pension despite discharge on compassionate grounds. The decision was treated as settled legal position to be followed by authorities.
Supreme Court — Record of Proceedings dismissing SLP(s) dated 04.01.2008 (arising from Mahavir Singh Narwal) The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions against the Delhi High Court decision, effectively leaving the Delhi Division Bench ruling intact and establishing that the issue was no longer open. The Tribunal invoked the Supreme Court dismissal as confirmation that the Delhi High Court view is settled law that authorities must follow; this supported setting aside the Adjutant General's order and directing grant of disability pension.
Delhi High Court order in WP (C) No. 8024/2008 (order dated 12.11.2008) The High Court directed respondents to re‑examine cases in light of Mahavir Singh Narwal and gave directions including limiting arrears in delayed applications and a three‑month period for decision on representations. The Tribunal noted this order as an instance where the High Court required administrative re-examination and remedial action; it used that context to criticise continued non-compliance by authorities and to justify directions and costs in the present petition.
Delhi High Court order in WP(C) 9186/2009 (order dated 25.05.2009) The Court warned that if disability pension was denied contrary to settled law, respondents would be burdened with exemplary costs of not less than Rs. 25,000/-. The order recorded that respondents had persisted in a contrary stand and ordered costs in at least one subsequent instance. The Tribunal relied on this order as precedent for awarding costs and as evidence that respondents had repeatedly failed to implement the settled legal position; this supported awarding Rs. 25,000/- to the petitioner in the present matter.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal's reasoning proceeded from the established legal position identified in the cited decisions: where a Medical Board finds disability attributable to or aggravated by military service, discharge on compassionate grounds or on the incumbent's own request does not operate as a bar to grant of disability pension. The Tribunal noted:

  1. The petitioner was enrolled, found medically fit at enrollment, later re-enrolled in Defence Security Corps, developed lumbar spondylosis, and a Medical Board assessed 20% disability aggravated by military service. This factual predicate triggered entitlement considerations under the settled jurisprudence.
  2. The Tribunal emphasized that the Division Bench decision in Mahavir Singh Narwal, and the Supreme Court's dismissal of SLP(s) arising from it, established that denial of disability pension solely because the serviceman sought discharge would be contrary to law.
  3. The Tribunal reviewed successive High Court orders (including directions to re-examine similar cases and the imposition of costs where respondents continued contrary practice) to conclude that authorities had repeatedly ignored the settled position despite clear judicial directions.
  4. Given the factual finding of service‑aggravated disability and the binding nature of the relevant precedents, the Tribunal found no lawful basis for the Adjutant General's refusal dated 30.04.2009, which relied on the ground of discharge at the serviceman's own request.
  5. Because respondents had persisted in denying benefits contrary to settled law and despite prior judicial directions, the Tribunal considered it appropriate both to set aside the impugned order and to award monetary costs to the petitioner for harassment, with a specified mechanism for recovery.
  6. The Tribunal specified temporal and monetary directions (payment within a specified period, interest on arrears, and recovery from the Adjutant General) as appropriate remedies to vindicate the petitioner's rights and to enforce compliance by the administrative authority that failed to follow the law.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Tribunal set aside the Adjutant General's order dated 30.04.2009 and allowed the petition. The Tribunal directed that the petitioner be given full disability pension as admissible according to the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission, awarded costs of Rs. 25,000/-, ordered payment within two months, and directed payment of arrears with 12% interest.

Implications and Consequences

  • Direct effect on the parties: The petitioner is to receive the disability pension (calculated as per the 5th Pay Commission recommendations), payment to be effected within two months, arrears to be paid with interest at 12%, and Rs. 25,000/- awarded as costs to the petitioner recoverable from the Adjutant General.
  • Enforcement message: The Tribunal emphasized that administrative authorities must follow the settled legal position established by the Delhi High Court decision and the Supreme Court dismissal of SLP(s); persistent non‑compliance may attract costs and other remedial measures.
  • Precedential stance: The opinion applies and enforces existing case law but does not announce a new legal principle beyond the precedents it follows. The decision enforces those precedents in the present factual matrix rather than creating additional binding law.

Note: This summary is based exclusively on the content of the provided opinion and does not add or infer information beyond the text supplied.

Show full summary ...

    Ex. Sep. Bachan Singh v. Union Of India & Ors.

    1. Heard. Issue notice. Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents accepts the notice.

    2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying that he should be granted disability pension @50% from the date of his discharge from service and he should be granted cost of petition because of harassment caused by respondents, that despite the fact that law was settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court he is driven to file this petition. It is alleged that Division Bench of Delhi High Court in case of Mahavir Singh Narwal 111 (2004) Delhi Law Times 550 has decided that on discharge on compassionate ground incumbent will be entitled to disability pension. Same was affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in batch of similar matters by the order dated 04.01.2008 and still the petitioner has been denied the same benefit by the order passed by their Adjutant General on 30.04.2009 and the same is reproduced as under:—

    Tele. 23792557

    Integrated HQ of MoD (Army) Adjutant General's Branch Addl Dte Gen Pers Services Sena Bhawan, New Delhi-110011

    B-41052.CMC/AG/PS-5 30 Apr 09

    Ex Nk Bachan Singh Flat No-PKT-B-54(LIG) Post-Nand Nagari Delhi-110093

    GRANT of DISABILITY PENSION

    1 Please refer to your letter dated 06 Apr 09.

    2 As per your petition you have been discharged on compassionate ground at your own request. Disability pension is not entitled to Army Personnel released on premature discharge as their own request.

    3 Therefore, it is regretted to inform you that you are not entitled to disability pension.

    (Saroj Bala) Section Officer AG/PS-5 For Adjutant General

    Copy to

    d(c)-with ref to their letter No B/01249.PS Coord/09.AG Coord(c) dated 16 Apr 09(CMC/536 dated 16 Apr 09)

    3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that petitioner was enrolled in regular Army on 21.12.1972 after having found physically and medically fit as per provisions of Reg. 383, Regulations for the Medical Services Armed Forces, 1962. The petitioner was discharged on 01.04.1991 after completing service of 19 years. The petitioner was got re-enrolled in Defence Security Corps on 24.04.1991, after being found physically and medically fit. He was discharging duties regularly but he was having health problem and he was admitted for treatment but he could not be cured as he was suffering from lumber spondylosis. Therefore, he was put in low medical category and ultimately, petitioner requested for discharge from service due to his inability to continue in service on account of lumber spondylosis. The petitioner was discharged on the basis of recommendation of Medical Board which found petitioner 20% disability aggravated due to military service. On account of this 20% disability, petitioner requested to grant him disability pension alongwith service pension but his request for disability pension was refused vide order dated 30.04.2008 Therefore, petitioner approached this Tribunal by filing this petition.

    4. Learned counsel for petitioner invited our attention to decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Mahavir Singh Narwal v. Union of India (Supra) and submitted that on account of that decision, petitioner should have been granted disability pension also but the same was denied to him knowing fully well that decision of Division Bench of Delhi High Court has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Division Bench of Delhi High Court held as under:—

    Disability Pension Regulations-Rule 173-Disability Pension: Grant of Disability 30% aggravated by stress of military service: Merely because person attained discharge on compassionate ground although disability acquired on account of stress and strain of military service, will not be ground to reject claim of disability pension: Respondent directed to grant disability pension to petitioner on basis of assessment of 30% disability as opined by Release Medical Board in 1979 upto date: For future disability pension respondent may conduct another Medical Board to assess percentage of disability of petitioner: If same not paid within 8 weeks, petitioner entitled to interest @9% on amount of arrears.

    The same was affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court which reads as under:—

    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

    Petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No (s) 24171/2004

    (From the judgement and order dated 05/05/2004 in WP No. 2967/1989 The HIGH COURT of DELHI AT N. DELHI)

    Union of India & Anr.Petitioner(S)

    Versus

    Mahavir Singh Narwal(Dead) By Lrs.Respondent(S)

    (With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and intervention and with prayer for interim relief and officer report)

    With SLP (C) No. 13671 of 2005

    (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and stay with prayer for interim relief and office report)

    SLP (C) No. 15353 of 2005

    (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and stay with prayer for interim relief and office report)

    SLP (C) No. 21420 of 2005

    (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)

    SLP (C) No. 4239 of 2006

    (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)

    Date: 04/01/2008 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

    Hon'able Mr. Justice P.P Naolekar

    Hon'able Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta

    For petitioner(s) Mr. R. Mohan, ASG. Mr. Sunil Roy, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. For respondent(s) Mr. S.N Bhat, Adv. Mr. N.P.S Panwar, Adv. Mr. D.P Chaturvedi, Adv. For Intervenor in IA6/07 SLP (C) 24171 of 2004 Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Adv. Ms. Rekha Giri, Adv. Mr. Bhim Sen Sehgal, Adv. Mr. Avijit Bhattacharjee, Adv. Mr. Saumya Kundu, Adv. Mr. R.C Kaushik, Adv. Mr. S.R Kalkal, Adv. Mr. B.S Mor, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Mor, Adv. Mr. Mahinder Singh Dahiya, Adv. Mr. S.M Dalai, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Adv.

    UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

    Heard the parties.

    Delay condoned.

    The special leave petitions are dismissed.

    (Sheetal Dhingra)(Neeru Bala Vij)

    Court MasterCourt Master

    5. In another petition filed in Hon'ble Delhi High Court, Court disposed of petitioner with following observation:

    12.11.2008

    Present: Colonel S.R Kalkal, Advocate for the Petitioner.

    Mr. Gaurav M. Liberhan, Advocate for the Respondents with Major S.S Pandeyforthe Respondents.

    WP (C) No. 8024/2008

    Rule DB.

    At the request of the learned counsels for the parties, the petition is taken for final disposal.

    The petitioner was enrolled in the regular Army as a Combatant Soldier on 24.08.1987 and was discharged on 31.12.2003 in low medical category. The petitioner had met with an accident and fractured his femur, which could not be cured despite treatment. The injury was declared attributable to military service and since the petitioner was incapable of achieving 100 per cent medical fitness he sought discharge from service.

    The claim of the petitioner for disability pension was rejected on 29.03.2005 on the ground that the petitioner has sought discharge himself. The petitioner filed an appeal against the same. The petitioner also filed a writ petition before the Punjab & Haryana High court seeking directions to dispose of the appeal. The appeal was thereafter dismissed and the order communicated to the petitioner on 11.04.2007

    The petitioner has now approached this Court on the ground that the matter in issue is no more re integra in view of the judgment of this court in Mahavir Singh Narwal v. Union of India; 111 (2004) DLT 550 (DB) and the SLP filed against the same stands dismissed on 4.1.2008

    In our considered view, the petitioner ought to have approached the respondents authority themselves to remedy the position as the legal position was not in issue. It is in view thereof that learned counsel for the respondents states that the respondents did not have an opportunity to pass a rectified order based on the current legal position.

    It is, therefore, agreed that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to re-examine the case of the petitioner in view of the aforesaid changed legal position and take the necessary decision within a maximum period of three (3) months from today.

    We have put to respondents' notice that in view of the changed legal position, the respondents themselves should remedy the position in all such cases where a person approaches the respondents but in case of delay in approaching the respondents, the arrears be naturally confined to a period of three (3) years. Such representations should be decided within a maximum period of three (3) months.

    The petition stands disposed of.

    The respondents to also abide by the general directions passed in the present petition.

    SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

    NOVEMBER 12, 2008.MOOL CHAND GARG, J.

    But still Authorities did not wake up and denied the benefit to incumbent. Then again in subsequent matters similar mistake was committed by the respondents and the Hon'ble High Court has made a strong observation and saddled Rs. 25,000/- as cost on respondents. Copy of the order dated 25.05.2009 has been placed on record as Annexure-7 and is reproduced as under:—

    25.05.2009

    Present: Mr. S.R Kalkal, Adv. for the Petitioner

    Mr. Mohan Kumar, Adv. for the Respondents

    WP(C) 9186/2009

    Rule DB.

    Learned counsel for the respondents accepts notice. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

    Learned counsel for the respondents states that he would like to examine the matter and file a counter affidavit. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner points out by reference to page 23 of the writ petition that the own stand of the respondents in their response to the legal notice is that the disability pension was denied to the petitioner as he took premature retirement on compassionate grounds. We may notice that this issue is no more res integra and we have had occasions to comment on the stand of the respondents which is contrary to the settled legal position. Since the respondents insisted that they would like to file a counter affidavit, the counter affidavit be filed within six weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.

    We make it clear that if it is found that the disability pension has been denied to the petitioner contrary to the settled legal position, the respondents will be burdened with exemplary costs of not less than Rs. 25,000/-.

    List the matter in the category of After Notice Miscellaneous Matters on 21.08.2009 as part heard.

    SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

    SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISHRA, J.

    MAY 25, 2009

    In that order a sum of Rs. 25,000/- has been awarded as cost to the respondents. Therefore, learned counsel submit that petitioner should be granted full disability pension alongwith cost of Rs. 25,000/- for harassment to him by approaching this Tribunal for redressal of his grievance. The Authorities have refused to grant him the disability pension even the law has been settled. Once the position of law has been settled which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Authorities should have in fairness followed the law. It appears that despite clear direction on the subject, respondents are still persisting in their effort to deny the rightful claim of petitioner. We fail to understand the attitude of Authorities for taking a casual approach in ignoring the mandate of law and driving poor retired personnel to resort to unnecessary litigation. We are fully persuaded that the petitioner deserve the same treatment, in identical matter WP(C) no. 9186/2009 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has granted Rs. 25,000/- as cost for harassment and still realisation did not d/awn upon them. Accordingly, we set aside the order dated 30.04.2009 and direct that petitioner should be given full disability pension as admissible according to recommendation of 5th Pay Commission. Petitioner is also entitled to cost of Rs. 25,000/- and this cost should be recovered from Adjutant General who has not taken proper care to abide by law laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court. The amount shall be released from him and paid to petitioner. The disability pension shall also be determined and paid to the petitioner within 2 months with 12% interest on arrears. The petition is disposed of with above directions.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Ex. Sep. Bachan Singh v. Union Of India & Ors.
    (Oct 19, 2009)