Union Of India And Others v. Partap Singh And Another

 

      






   UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS  



NO.2476312-K Ex. TS NAIK, PARTAP SINGH AND ANR.  

 !" #$%&'!()*+,
' +
! #+
#-+',
 #$%&'!()*+,
'.
/ ++*
 

!"#  $ % &$

 ! ' (  )))  +
! #+
#-+',
 0)(  1  &2     ! ' ' # ! !$$*   ! + ++ ,- ./!

! ! 0 ''++  12& 34 '+ 05 ! 1"+

  0&$ .!    +   7!  0&$84# 05 /!

! !

&*! ! *

0

0 $ 5 '  !   0 + '&+ 0& ! *

 05 /5

&+ *

9 :  *  9 -: /   

- ! 0 $$ /+# /!

!

 0 * * + 05 ! '   ;+

&$ '' *

 ! ' 3  &0"

 !

 !   +$5  ! '

! '

+  ''

!

* ! % &# ! 0



&$+   !< 0 *+ 05 !  0&$ /!

$ ' * ! + ++ ,- .12& 34 - = !< !+ ! $+

&$

 ! '  + *  !

&*! ! 

+ / ! ! 0$    >  "5 0 

+ !  ! &$ + ! $/  $+#  

&+ /!

&"  ! 0

0 $ 5 '  0 2++# 0 *  /$  #

" ! +&5

!  ?

<  * < !  0

  !

+# /!

! <+ !   / ! +& ++

  $5 ! !

 !  $ "+ ! "#   0 + ! !

33 0

  0 + +  & !

 !  $"

& !

 @& ! 0

$ "+   * + '&+  1 ' ! A&+*"

C0$ &'" % &

+ 
 

  #  $+  DC  

     ! 8 +

++  >E# /!  $ ! @&  / / ! *+ 

$ "

*

! 0

+"

 0$   ! '

! 5 /! ! $

   *+  ! $ "# ! $< '*'! +  &+3
It is not in dispute that the appellant was discharged from service/invalidated out of service on account of 100% permanent disability suffered by him during the course of service. It is also not in dispute that the said disability was held to be attributable to military service. That the disability was subsequently reduced to fall below 20% is also common ground. Inasmuch as the authorities stopped the disability pension, they committed no wrong. Stoppage of the disability pension did not however mean that the service element of the pension could also be stopped. That is evident from the provisions of Regulation 186 which reads as follows:

186 (1) An individual who is invalided out of service with a disability attributable to or aggravated by service but assessed at below 20 per cent shall be entitled to service element only.

(2) An individual who was initially granted disability pension but whose disability is re-assessed at below 20% subsequently shall cease to draw disability element of disability pension from the date it falls below 20 per cent. He shall however continue to draw the service element of disability pension." (emphasis supplied) The Tribunal was therefore justified in restoring the service element of the pension in favour of the appellant. The question however is whether the arrears could have been restricted to three years only. The Tribunal in our view need not have done so. That is because the appellant had a right to receive service element of the pension in light of Regulation 186 (supra), which right was valuable and ought to have been protected. The fact that the appellant had approached the Tribunal for redress belatedly

3-3 was in the peculiar circumstances of the case no reason for the Tribunal to reduce the payment of arrears to three years only." E ;+

&$

 ! ' 3  !   0 0$ 

'& !  + '

'



$/ $+ 05 B C0$ &'" % &

+

  "

#  $ %& , 6&!#  ' ! A&+*"

! B C0$ &'" % &

+ #  !  $"   * + '&+# !

# ! *

 & ! "'$ 5  + !

 * <   0 +  0 5  ;+

&$

 ! '  !   0 0$  '& !

($+ '

'$

$/ B   * &+  "+ &

 5

   05 !

 % & F ! ' /  ' # 

*$5# + "

+ 1 +
! #+
#-+',
2  )*3-'

1.
/ ++*
2  )*3-'

 *-*+,40


 =!! 'G *( +  H =!! '

0$