Eligibility For Disability Pension Or War Injury Pension Not A Bounty; It's A Right Available To Military Personnel: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court remarked that the eligibility for disability pension or war injury pension is a right available to military personnel and is not a bounty.
The Court remarked thus in a writ petition preferred by the Union of India against the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Regional Bench, Kochi.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Harisankar V. Menon enunciated, “As already found, the eligibility for disability pension/war injury pension is a right available to military personnel. Therefore, the said claim is to be extended by interpreting the clauses liberally and extending the benefits available to the claimant. The petitioners have no case that the mine blast injury classified as ‘Battle Casualty’ does not fall under Section 2 of Chapter IV of the Regulations. They only point out a technicality, for which they are responsible to some extent. In such a situation, we do not find any illegality in the ultimate findings rendered by the Appellate Tribunal in Ext.P3 order.”
CGC T.V. Vinu represented the petitioners while Advocate T.R. Jagadeesh represented the respondent.
Factual Background -
The respondent was commissioned in the Indian Army in 1981 and superannuated in 2013. In 1995, he sustained severe injuries due to a mine blast and the degree of disablement was assessed at 40% for life. He was paid a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 60,192/- but later, he developed Bronchial Asthma assessed at 20% by the medical authorities and treated as aggravated by military service. He claimed that the blast injury to both hands was classified as ‘Battle Casualty’ on account of which he expressed his desire to refund the lumpsum compensation received with interest for earning disability pension. However, his request was rejected and he was not extended the benefits under the Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008.
Thereafter, the Tribunal/AFT held that the respondent can prefer an appeal for getting the difference in lumpsum compensation on account of the difference between normal disability and war injury. Hence, the respondent filed an appeal and the same was disposed of by granting only disability pension as against Bronchial Asthma, rejecting the claim for difference in the lumpsum payment. Hence, he again filed an appeal before AFT and it found that the restoration of war injury pension is permissible on repayment of compensation already received by the respondent. The original application was allowed, directing the respondent to repay Rs. 60,192/- with interest @ 6%. Being aggrieved by such order, the appellant approached the High Court.
The High Court in the above regard observed, “A reading of the above Regulations would make it clear that the same is not a bounty given to military personnel. On the other hand, the above are beneficial provisions applicable for military personnel, considering the nature of the service, they are rendering to the nation at large. In such a situation, a beneficial interpretation is to be given to the above provisions, especially, when it is provided that war injury pension under Regulation 99 is an entitlement to the military personnel in a liberalised manner on satisfying the other conditions laid down.”
The Court said that even going by the provisions under Section 22 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2011, the Tribunal can entertain an application, once presented with a proper explanation for the delay.
“Therefore, the delay and laches pointed out by the petitioners do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is to be noticed that the respondent was raising the same contentions in the first round as well as in the second round. That is not the case as regards the petitioner, on the issue of delay and laches”, it added.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition and confirmed the findings rendered by the Tribunal.
Cause Title- Union of India & Ors. v. Colonel Shashi Thomas (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:58864)
Appearance:
Petitioners: CGC T.V. Vinu
Respondent: Advocates T.R. Jagadeesh, V.A. Vinod, and Adi Narayanan.
