Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court

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

13 November 2024 2:35 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
 

Similar News