Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran

13 November 2024 7:47 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


"The rights of ex-servicemen to disability pensions must align with fairness and established legal precedents," Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled in favor of Gurcharan Singh, a former army serviceman, modifying an Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) order regarding his disability pension. Singh sought the addition of the service element to his disability pension and the application of the rounding-off provision to increase his pension percentage. This judgment grants Singh the service element from his discharge date and rounds off his disability pension to 50% from January 1, 1996, applying Supreme Court precedents to ensure Singh’s entitlements.

Gurcharan Singh served in the Army from January 28, 1971, to July 29, 1978, when he was invalided out due to "Neurosis (Depressive Reaction)," rated initially at 20% disability. Although his initial claim for a disability pension was denied on grounds that the disability was not attributable to service, the Armed Forces Tribunal later granted him 20% disability pension from July 1978 to July 1980. Following a Re-Assessment Medical Board (RAMB), Singh’s disability was reassessed at 40% for life from July 1980, with the rounding-off provision increasing it to 50% from January 1, 2016. Dissatisfied, Singh petitioned the High Court for relief, seeking inclusion of the service element and an earlier effective date for rounding-off his pension to 50%.

Regulation 183 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961: Singh’s counsel argued that Regulation 183 mandates the inclusion of both service and disability elements in disability pensions. As Singh had not completed 15 years of service, he was entitled to receive at least 2/3rd of the minimum service pension for his rank as the service element.

The Court held that the regulation requires the petitioner to receive the service element of the disability pension, observing that Singh’s disability was deemed attributable to service by the AFT, thus entitling him to the service element.
"In terms of Regulation 183, the petitioner should receive the service element of his disability pension, given that his disability has been recognized as service-related by the Armed Forces Tribunal," the Court noted.

Application of the Supreme Court’s Ruling in Ram Avtar: Singh cited the 2014 Supreme Court decision in Union of India vs. Ram Avtar, which allows the rounding off of disability percentages for ex-servicemen to the nearest higher percentage. Singh argued he should receive 50% disability pension for life beginning January 1, 1996, instead of January 1, 2016.

The Court concurred, granting Singh 50% disability pension for life from January 1, 1996, applying the precedents established in Ram Avtar and the Davinder Singh case. The Court noted that rounding off the pension aligns with principles of fair treatment and avoids arbitrary distinctions among ex-servicemen based on administrative timelines.

"The petitioner is entitled to 50% disability pension from January 1, 1996, in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ram Avtar," the Court stated.

Impact of Delay on Petitioner's Rights: The Court observed that unnecessary delays in providing ex-servicemen their entitled benefits undermine their rights, especially for veterans facing disabilities that hinder their earning capacity.

Observations on Policy Consistency: The Court emphasized that similar cases should have consistent outcomes, with military veterans receiving equivalent benefits in light of relevant Supreme Court judgments.

"Delay in the adjustment of disability pensions causes undue hardship for veterans. Providing timely benefits aligns with the government’s duty to care for those who served in uniform," the bench stated.

The High Court allowed the petition, modifying the AFT’s order to:

Grant the service element of disability pension to Gurcharan Singh for life starting July 30, 1978.

Round off Singh’s disability pension to 50% from January 1, 1996, in alignment with the Ram Avtar precedent.

This judgment reinforces the legal protections available to ex-servicemen and underscores the need for fair and consistent application of disability pension benefits.

Date of Decision: November 8, 2024
 

Latest Legal News