# Pushkar Singh Verma v. D.I.O.S., Meerut & another

- **Citation:** (1999) 3 ILRA 160
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1999
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pushkar-singh-verma-v-d-i-o-s-meerut-another-39376
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

160 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999

2.
Following these decision this petition is allowed. It is held that
the petitioner is entitled to salary of Principal for the period for
which he officiated on the post of Principal and the arrears of
balance salary will be paid to him within two months of production
of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned. As
regards the pension since the same is paid on the basis of the salary
last drawn at the time of retirement I hold that the petitioner is
entitled to the pension of Principal, if he retired on the post of
officiating Principal.
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$' 7+
7+ -8/<
-8/<
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 6+$ 5$=$ -
7+( +21·%/( 6+$ 5$=$ -
7+( +21·%/( .5,6+1$ .80$5 -
7+( +21·%/( .5,6+1$ .80$5 -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

([ 1R 6LJQDOPDQ
-DJGDPED 3UDVDG 'XEH\
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
7KH 8QLRQ RI ,QGLD DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL *' 0XNHUML
6KUL 6DW\DMLW 0XNHUML
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV 6&
6KUL '6 6KXNOD

$UWLFOH RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD WKH JUDQW RI GLVDELOLW\
SHQVLRQ WKH DXWKRULWLHV RXJKW WR KDYH LQWHUSUHWHG DQG DSSOLHG WKH
SURYLVLRQV RI SHQVLRQ 5HJXODWLRQV RI WKH $UP\ LQ D EURDG
IUDPH ZRUN WR GLVSHQVH ZLWK MXVWLFH LQVWHDG WKH\ ZHUH DSSOLHG LQ D
QDUURZ FDPSDVV EHUHIW IURP IHHOLQJ RI V\PSDWK\ FRPSDVVLRQ DQG
LQ D PRVW DUELWUDU\ PDQQHU +HOG
7KH FDVH RI WKH SHWLWLRQHU LV UHPLWWHG IRU UHFRQVLGHUDWLRQ E\ WKH
0LQLVWU\ RI 'HIHQFH IRU WKH JUDQW RI GLVDELOLW\ SHQVLRQ IRU SDVVLQJ
DIUHVK DSSURSULDWH RUGHU LQ WKH OLJKW RI WKH REVHUYDWLRQV PDGH
KHUHLQ DERYH :KLOH UHFRQVLGHULQJ WKH FDVH RI WKH SHWLWLRQHU
5HJXODWLRQV LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK WKH UHVSRQGHQWV ZLOO DOVR EH JXLGHG
ZLWK D KXPDQ DSSURDFK VR WKDW PHVVDJH PD\ QRW JR IURP WKH
1999
------
July, 26
1999
------
Pushkar Singh
Verma
 Vs.
D.I.O.S.,
Meerut &
another
------
M. Katju , J.
3 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
161
FRUULGRU RI WKH 'HIHQFH 0LQLVWU\ WKDW WKH *RYHUQPHQW LV QRW DOLYH
DQG VHQVLWLYH WR WKH SUREOHPV RI VROGLHUV ZKR DUH GLVFKDUJHG IURP
VHUYLFH RQ DFFRXQW RI GLVDELOLW\ GXULQJ WKH FRXUVH RI 0LOLWDU\
6HUYLFH 3DUD

By the Court

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Standing Counsel for the Union of India.

2. After the success of operation Vijay, the entire country has
showered tribute and homage to the departed soldiers who lost their
lives, and also saluted the bravery of the soldiers who in difficult
mountain terrain where the temperature was below the freezing point
successfully repelled the onslaught of the intruders.

3. Now the time has come when the attitude and behavior of
the Army Officers and the Defence Ministry towards soldiers should
change. No doubt discipline and sterness is the hall mark of Military
service but it does not mean that the soldiers who are separated from
their families to guard the border states, thousand of miles away
from their homes and are often subjected to mental stress and strain
be allowed to be abandoned, if they are discharged from military
service on account of any disability which is attributable to the
Military service. Their cases for grant of disability pension deserve
sympathatic and compassionate consideration. Undoubtedly, the
rules and orders, in that regard Pharsh, which require review, in view
of the respect they command, so young men instilled with sense of
patriotism, may join the military service without a feeling of
insecurity in future.

4. The petitioner was initially recruited in the Army on 3rd of
June 1975 after being posted at various places at the relevant time
was performing his duties in Jammu.

5. At the time when he was recruited he was not suffering
from any ailment. The Medical Board, which examined him,
declared him fit to perform the arduous duty as a soldier. But while
he was posted at Patni Top in the district of Udhampur (J & K), the
petitioner suffered from neurosis, may be due to stress and strain to
which a soldier is bound to be effected due to separation from his
family.
1999
------
Ex.No. 14294238
Signalman
J.P. Dubey
 Vs.
The U.O.I., &
others
------
S.H.A. Raza , J.
Krishna
Kumar,J.
162 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999

6. As soon as his illness was detected he was transferred to
Chandigarh but his condition aggravated. Thereafter he was shifted
to Command Hospital at Lucknow. He was discharged from Military
Service due to disability in category EEE which according to the
petitioner was permanent one.

7. In the counter affidavit it was not denied that while
performing the difficult and hard duties at Jammu he was posted at
Patni Top in the district of Udhampur but it was contended that it
was not on high altitude. It seems that the authorities that have
passed the orders have no knowledge about the topography that it
was not on high altitude. It seems that the authorities that have
passed the orders have no knowledge about the topography of
Udhampur district or Patni Top in Jammu & Kashmir which is at a
high altitude. If it is assumed that he was not posted on a high
altitude, even then owing to aloofness from the home and the family,
a soldier may be subjected to such illness which is evident from the
averments made in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit where it has
been stated that the petitioner was enrolled in the Army Corps of
Signals on 3rd of June, 1975 by Recruiting Officer, Bareilly. After
having rendered seven years and twenty six days' service in the
Army, the petitioner was discharged from service on 29th June,
1962(A.N.) under Army Rule 13 (3) III (iii) having been invalidated
and boarded out from service by the Invaliding Medical Board due to
disability "NEUROSIS DEPRESSIVE REACTION (300), in low
medical category 'EEE'. Degree of disablement was assessed at 30%
for two years by the properly constituted invaliding medical board.

8. The petitioner staked a claim in respect of grant of
disability pension. His application was forwarded by the Officer
Incharge, Signal Records, Jabalpur to Controller of Defence
Accounts (Pension) rejected the claim regarding pension in respect
of the petitioner by means of his order dated 21st September, 1982.
The petitioner thereafter approached the Officer-in-Charge, Signal
Records, Jabalpur by making a representation/ Appeal with the
request that the case be forwarded to Government of India, Ministry
of Defence. The Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) referred
the appeal of the petitioner to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence
(Pension & Appeals) Government of India who rejected the appeal
on 31st July, 1986.

1999
------
Ex.No. 14294238
Signalman
J.P. Dubey
 Vs.
The U.O.I., &
others
------
S.H.A. Raza , J.
Krishna
Kumar,J.
3 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
163

Thereafter, the petitioner having no other alternative option
available invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India by filing a writ petition bearing No.22139
of 1990. An Hon'ble Single Judge of this court on 26th of September,
1995 allowed the writ petition by issuing a direction to the Secretary,
Ministry of Defense, New Delhi respondent no. 1 to take into
consideration all the relevant provisions of Regulation 173 of the
Army Pension Regulations 1961 and in particular, Appendix-II
contained in paragraph 7(b) of the aforesaid Regulation. He was
further directed to arrive at a necessary conclusion as to whether the
disease of neurosis (Depressive reaction) has occurred to the
petitioner during the period of initial service and whether the
petitioner has incurred 30 percent disability, and thereafter will take
steps for granting disabling pension in accordance with Appendix-II
contained in paragraph 7 (b) of the aforesaid Regulations. The court
further directed that such consideration has to be made as quickly as
possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order before the Secretary,
Ministry of Defense. It was further directed that in case, the
Secretary was not in a position to accede to the prayer for grant of
disabling pension benefit to the petitioner, he will indicate sufficient
reasons. The Secretary was further directed to set up a Medical
Board for further examination of the petitioner's disease in arriving
at a necessary conclusion.

9. While considering the case of the petitioner this court took
notice of the fact that the Officer-in-Charge, Signal Records,
Jabalpur recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of his
pension but he rejected the claim regarding pension by his order
dated 21.9.1982. By placing credence on the decision in Gurnam
Singh Vs. Union of India and others (1992) Labour and
Industrial Cases 1594, the court relied upon the following
observations which reads as under:

"That grant of disability pension is covered by the provision of
Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961,
which provides that unless otherwise specifically provided a
disability pension may be granted to an individual who is invalided
from service on account of a disability which is attributable at or
aggravated by military service and is assessed at 20 percent or over.
The question whether a disability is attributed to or aggravated by
military service shall be determined under the Rules in Appendix-II.
The question as to whether or not the disability is attributable to the
1999
------
Ex.No. 14294238
Signalman
J.P. Dubey
 Vs.
The U.O.I., &
others
------
S.H.A. Raza , J.
Krishna
Kumar,J.
164 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
military service has to be determined in accordance with the
provisions of Appendix-II. The relevant entry in Appendix-II is
contained in paragraph 7 (b) which reads as under :-

A disease which has led to an individuals discharge or death
will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service if no note of it
was made at the time of individual's acceptance for military service.
However, if medical opinion holds, for reasons to be started that the
disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior
to acceptance for service the disease will not be deemed to have
arisen during service.

A perusal of paragraph 7 (b) as stated above would show that
a disease which leads to an individual's discharge is deemed to have
arisen in service if no note of it was made at the time of the
individual's acceptance for military service."

10. Neither in the counter-affidavit filed in the earlier writ
petition nor in the present writ petition any material has been placed
before this court that the petitioner has not acquired disability
because of his posting at Jammu & Kashmir at the relevant point of
time nor any expert opinion of the Medical Board has been annexed
with the counter affidavit which illustrates that the disability has not
occurred because of the postings of the petitioner at high altitude
area of Jammu & Kashmir. Beside the above there is nothing on the
record to indicate that the disease could not have been detected on
medical examination prior to acceptance of service. No mention was
made anywhere that the disease could not have been detected at the
time of petitioner'' joining the Military Service.

11. A perusal of the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition
will indicate that the direction of this court to the Secretary, Ministry
of Defense to set up a Medical Board for examination of the
petitioner's disease in arriving at a necessary conclusion was
complied with. In paragraph 26 of the counter affidavit, a vain effort
has been made to deny the petitioner the grant of disability pension
by indicating that the Ministry of Defense only consulted the
Medical authorities in compliance of the court's order. The Medical
Board did not examine the petitioner and submitted his report to the
government that the disease was not attributable to the Military
Service. It was not indicated by the Medical Board as to what was
the percentage of the disability. In the circumstances, we are of the
view that the case of the petitioner was not dealt with by the Ministry
of Defense in accordance with the directions of this court. It appears
1999
------
Ex.No. 14294238
Signalman
J.P. Dubey
 Vs.
The U.O.I., &
others
------
S.H.A. Raza , J.
Krishna
Kumar,J.
3 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
165
that the judgement of this court was read in a most general and
sweeping manner and the direction of this court was not followed
and adhered to. Regulation regarding the grant of disability pension
were interpreted and applied in a most mechanical and casual
manner by the Ministry of Defense . The authorities ought to have
interpreted and applied the Regulations in a broad frame work to
dispense with justice, instead it were quoted and applied in a narrow
compass, bereft from a feeling of sympathy, compassion and
humanitarianism, in a most arbitrary ad irrational manner.

12. In view of the reasons indicated herein above, this writ
petition succeeds and is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari
quashing the letter dated 31st July, 1986 contained in Annexure-IV
and letter dated 20th December, 1995 contained in Annexure-VIII
passed by Ministry of Defense, Government of India is issued. The
case of the petitioner is remitted for reconsideration by the Ministry
of Defense for the grant of disability pension, for passing afresh
appropriate order in the light of the observations made hereinabove.
While reconsidering the case of the petitioner, Regulations in
accordance with the respondents will also be guided with a human
approach so that message may not go from the corridor of the
Defense Ministry that the Government is not alive and sensitive to
the problems of soldiers who are discharged from service, on account
of disability during the course of Military Service. The Ministry of
Defense Government of India is further directed to dispose of the
appeal within a period of three months from the date of production of
a certified copy of this order.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 1R RI

6PW 6DURM 'HYL
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 WKURXJK 7KH 6HFUHWDU\
'HSDUWPHQW RI ,UULJDWLRQ *RYHUQPHQW RI
83 /XFNQRZ RWKHU
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
 6KUL %KRRSHQGUD 1DWK 6LQJK
1999
------
Ex.No. 14294238
Signalman
J.P. Dubey
 Vs.
The U.O.I., &
others
------
S.H.A. Raza , J.
Krishna
Kumar,J.
1999
------
May, 21