Anil Kaul vs Union Of India & Others
2000 Latest Caselaw 384 Del

ORDER

A.K. Sikri, J.

CW 2105/98 and CM 3443/98

1. Rule.

With the consent of the parties the matter is taken for final disposal at this stage.

2. The petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Army on 24th December, 1972. In January, 1987 he was appointed as Squadron Commander in 65 Armoured Regiment in his parent Unit. On 4th October, 1987 he was ordered to command a Squadron of the same regiment which was earlier being commanded by Major A.S. Bhinder. While commanding this regiment petitioner on 12th October, 1987 took part in the operation between Indian Peace keeping Force and LTTE in Jafanaa, Srilanka in which he was severely wounded and sustained serious injuries in his left hand and Right eye because of which he has suffered disablement to the extent of 80% for all his life. For the bravery shown in the aforesaid battle, he was even awarded Veer Chakra by the President of India in terms of Notification No. 35/88. In terms of communication No. 17/89 dated 3rd October, 1987 issued by the respondent, petitioner was entitled to get option. However, this compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,37,888 was paid to him by a cheque dated 5th February, 1996.

3. As the petitioner was paid this compensation after more than 9 years from the date he suffered injuries, he made requests for payment of interest on delayed payment of compensation. The respondent did not accept this request and the present petition has been filed in which petitioner claims compound interest at the rate of 18% on the aforesaid amount of disability compensation paid to him with effect from 12.1.1987.

4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is submitted that there is no provision for payment of any interest. It is also submitted that there is no unreasonable delay in the petitioner's case for payment of lump-sum compensation in as much as policy letter for grant of lump sum compensation was issued only on 7th March, 1991 as per which individuals were required to give their option for lump sum amount within 6 weeks from the issue of the aforesaid letter. Based on the petitioner's option a meeting of the Disability Compensation Medical Based (DCMB) was held in January, 1993. Approved copy of the DCMB was received by Org 9(h)/AHQ in May, 1993. The case was initiated for Govt. sanction on 20th September, 1993 which was held up for want of original medical documents. Only in December, 1994, Ministry of defense was informed that regular medical documents could not be available and under these circumstances, the case of the petitioner was processed on available documents. Government gave its sanction on 10th July, 1995 and in pursuance of that sanction payment was made on 5th February, 1996.

5. Ms. Maninder Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that it is wrong on the part of the respondent to contend that the policy decision was effected for the first time only by communication dated 7th March, 1991. According, to her, the petitioner was entitled to lump sum compensation even as per order dated 30th October, 1987 of the respondent and in support of this statement she has relied upon the judgment dated 25th June, 1998 passed by J&K High Court in CWP 914/95 entitled as Brig. Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others. As per this judgment decision was taken by the Government in their communication dated 30th October, 1997 for payment of lump sum compensation (refer para 14.4 of the communication dated 30th October, 1997) and order dated 7.3.1991 was issued only because of para 18.5. of communication dated 30th, October, 1997. It was mentioned that separate orders will be issued for regulating communication of war injury pension admissible to Armed Forces. In that case the Court accordingly passed the orders holding that petitioner was entitled to pension with the interest at the rate of 12% per annum. It is further submitted by Ms. Acharya that the aforesaid judgment of the J&K High Court is complied with by the respondent and letter dated 21.7.99 is issued in this respect which reads as under:

"In partial modification of the MOD letter No. Army HQ/B/40401/45/AG/PS-4 (d)/1562/D(Pen-C) dated 30th July, 1998 regarding implementation of the final judgment dt. 22.5.98 passed by High Court of J&K, Jammu in the above mentioned SWP, I am directed to convey the sanction of the President to the payment of the due amount to the petitioner (Brig. Avtar Singh) including 12% interest thereon w.e.f. 30.10.87 (as against 5.12.95 as mentioned in MOD letter dt. 30th July, 98."

6. Therefore she submits that it is not correct on the part of the respondent to say that the direction for payment of lump sum contribution was given for the first time by communication dated 7th March, 1991.

7. There is force in her submission and as per provisions contained in communication dated 30.10.87, the petitioner became entitled to get lump sum compensation at that point of time itself and not after issuance of letter dated 7th March, 1991.

8. In so far as reasons given by the respondents explaining the delay, it is sufficient to say that the delay in fact occurred in dealing with the case of the petitioner and the said delay has to be attributed to the respondent themselves in processing the case of the petitioner in due time. As the delay is on the part of the respondents in releasing the lump sum compensation, respondents are liable to pay interest on the said delay at the rate of 12% with effect from 30th October, 1987 and the same be paid within 3 months from today.