The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) to grant ‘disability pension’ to an army officer who developed a hearing loss during his service which was assessed by the medical board as less than 20% for life. and it was also stated that it was aggravated by the performance of military service.
In addition, the court said that the benefits of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sukhvinder Singh Vs. Union of India and others (2014) will apply to the officer, where the Supreme Court had held that when a member of the armed forces is taken out of service on account of disability, it must necessarily be presumed that his disability was found to be above twenty percent.
A division bank of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharmone said: “Although the judgment has been pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case titled Sukhwinder Singh Vs. UOI and others (supra) were adopted on 25.06.2014. However, prima facie, while the benefits thereof cannot be denied to the present defendant merely on the ground that it has only prospective effect and not retroactive effect…it appears that the acceptance of the plea (supra) arose out of the fact that the Army authorities, on several occasions, untenably evaded the onerous statutory obligation upon them, to grant to the present respondent the disability pension, which otherwise in terms of the supra-expostulation of law, he was entitled to be so endowed“.
These observations were made during the hearing of the Union government’s plea challenging AFT’s decision to grant disability pension to the soldier in light of Sukhvinder Singh case.
The respondent Jarnail Singh was enrolled in the Indian Army on March 31, 1988 in good health and was discharged from service on November 30, 2007 before completing the terms of service, at his own request and on extremely compassionate grounds.
During his service he suffered the disability of ‘Sensori Neural Hearing Loss B/L-H90’, which was assessed by the Release Medical Board at less than 20% for life and which was also stated to be aggravated by serving military duties employ. .
Singh’s disability element claim was rejected by the competent authority on the grounds that disability was assessed at less than 20%. He then filed a first appeal on July 7, 2008, which was rejected by the ministry on December 11, 2008.
After six years, the defendant petitioned the Armed Forces Tribunal.
On March 7, 2019, the Tribunal ruled in his favor, based on the court’s ruling Sukhwinder Singh v Union of Indiawhich stated that a disability of less than 20% could be rounded up to 50% for the right to a pension. Aggrieved by this order, the Union moved the Supreme Court.
Before the Supreme Court, the Union government argued that Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, applies only to those who have been left out of service due to disability and not to those who have been discharged on compassionate grounds. She claimed that the AFT’s reliance on Sukhwinder Singh was misplaced because the judgment applied to cases where the soldier was disabled but did not apply in the case where the soldier was discharged from service on compassionate grounds/domestic issues.
After considering the arguments, the Court rejected Union’s argument, stating that defendant’s disability was exacerbated by military service, making him eligible for a disability pension even without having suffered disability.
She noted that denying benefits would lead to injustice, especially since no negative comments were made during the service.
The Court also clarified that while the decision in the case of Sukhwinder Singh Vs. UOI and others were adopted in 2014, although its benefits cannot be denied to the officer merely on the grounds that it has only prospective effect and not retroactive effect.
“The consequence of this is that the beneficial effect of the said declaration of law, as well as prima facie, must be accorded to the soldiers, irrespective of the date of pronouncement of the said judgment. If the said donation is not made, prima facie, in the considered opinion of this Court, an arbitrary termination date would be applied between the soldiers who were discharged before the judgment was passed…, i.e. with the soldiers who were discharged after the verdict was pronounced…” it opined.
Upholding and affirming the Tribunal’s order, the Supreme Court said: “As a result, this Court, after dismissing the petition, is compelled to confirm the judgment of the concerned Tribunal restricting the disability pension arrears to the petitioner on 25.06.2014.“.
Title: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. EX HAV JARNAIL SINGH AND ANR.
Mr. Dharm Chand Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners/UOI.
Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.
Click here to read/download the order