Delhi High Court
Brigadier B.C.Rana vs Union Of India & Ors. on 9 February, 2011
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved On: 18th January, 2011
Judgment Delivered On: 9th February, 2011
+ WP(C) 8787/2008
BRIGADIER B.C.RANA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Jyoti Singh, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjeev Sachdeva, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. This is a second round fought by Brigadier
B.C.Rana, who desires an Auto Transmission Maruti Zen Car to
be allotted to him under a scheme for disabled Army Officers.
2. The scheme upon which he places reliance was
promulgated on 18.11.1996 and as per which serving officers
who had become disabled or who became paraplegic during
various operations, including counter insurgency operations
were eligible to apply for being selected for allotment of a
disabled friendly motor vehicle.
3. Being commissioned in the Indian Army in
December 1969 and having participated in the Indo-Pak War in
the year 1971, during the war, petitioner incurred a disability
of 'Amputated Symes Lt.' i.e. amputation below knee; left side.
4. The scheme in question was not unlimited in the
largesse to be distributed. As a one-time measure, only 18
cars were made available by Maruti Udyog Limited and in
respect whereof excise duty exemption was granted by the
Ministry of Finance. It is apparent that only 18 officers could
be accommodated.
5. As against 18 motor vehicles which were available
to be allotted, 27 applications were received and this required
9 applicants to be weeded out and for which Screening Board
was constituted.
6. Treating petitioners disability at 40% and finding 18
other cases more deserving than that of the petitioner, name
of the petitioner was excluded from the list of 18 persons held
qualified. The petitioner questioned the percentage of
disability attributed to him. A second Screening Board was
constituted which maintained the petitioner's disability to be
40%. This necessitated the petitioner to file W.P.(C)
No.9522/2004, in which, vide decision dated 20.2.2008 it is
opined that petitioner's disability was 60%. Noting that there
were 24 applicants and only 18 cars and that the 18 applicants
had to be selected on the basis of comparative disability i.e.
those with greater disability to be given preference over those
who had less disability, directions were issued by this Court to
convene a Screening Committee who was directed to
reconsider the matter treating petitioner's disability to be 60%.
7. A Screening Committee was reconstituted which
reconsidered all 27 applicants. The Screening Committee
consisted of 7 officers; being, Major General B.V.Nair, ADJ,
C&W; Brig.J.S.Yadav Jt.Jag; Brig.(Retd.) J.S.Kanwar, DAS, AGI;
Col.M.E.Luther Sr.Advisor Surgery and Orthopedics, Base
Hospital, Delhi Cantt; Surgeon Cdr.Mohit Goel, Neurophysician,
Army Hospital (R&R) Delhi Cantt; Brig.B.K.Chopra, Comdt. ALC
Pune and Brig.R.K.Rana, SM, DDG (Wel).
8. At this stage a clarification may be penned.
Notwithstanding W.P.(C) No.9522/2004 being decided on the
basis as if there were 24 applicants and this being the case
projected even in the instant writ petition, record of the
proceedings held on 14th May 2008 consisting of a Board of 7
Officers as above, considered 27 applicants.
9. To put it in a tabular form, the 18 persons who were
empanelled for being allotted a car each under the policy
reads as under:-
S. Name Disability
No.
1. Col.S.K.Razdan, KC 100% disability due to GSW
(Lumber region) with
paraplegia. Med cat S1H1
A3 (Life) P1E1
2. Maj.Pallav Desai, SM 100% disability due to Hptr
Crash with fracture
dislocation DV-12 with
paraplegia Med Cat
S1H1A3P1E1
3. Capt.Zahir Ahmed Khan 100% disability due to frost
bite resulting in amputation
of fingers and toes of both
hands and feet.
4. Maj.Mahesh Chander, SC 100% disability due to GSW
dorsal spine D2/D3 with
paraplegia
Med Cat S1H1A3P1E1
5. Capt.Ashok Mor 60% disability Amputation of
BK (Lt) due to mine blast.
Med Cat S1H1A2(Life)P1E1
6. Capt.Ravinder Singh, SM 70% disability, BK
Transtribial amputation (Rt.)
Med Cat S1H1A2P1E1
7. Maj.P.S.Hundal 80% disability. BK
Amputation of Rt neck of
Talus (Lt) with necrosis of
fragment.
Med Cat S1H1A2P1E1
8. Lt.Col.P.C.Katoch 60% disability. BK
Amputation (Lt).
Med Cat S1H1A2P1E1
9. Maj.Kuriakose KT 100% disability Traumatic
paraplegia as a result of air
crash.
Med Cat S1H1A3P3E1
10. Lt.Gen.P.S.Joshi, AVSMVSM 100% disability. BK
Amputation both legs due to
mine blast.
Med Cat S1H1A3P1E1
11. Maj.Yudhvir Singh 60% disability. GSW back
with fracture LV 4-5 and
Parapareses both lower
limbs.
Med Cat S1H1A3P1E1
12. Lt.Col.A.P.S.Ahluwalia 70% disability. Amputation
below elbow (Lt.)
Med Cat S1H1A2P2E1
13. Brig.P.Bhanot 60% disability. BK
amputation Rt leg crush
injury Lt leg (Optd.)
Med Cat S1H1A2P1E1
14. Col.N.K.Kakar, SM 60% disability. Mine blast
injury (Rt) leg with BK
amputation.
Med Cat S1H1A2P1E1
15. Col.R.S.Tushir 60% disability. BK
amputation Rt leg.
Med Cat S1H1A2P1E1
16. Lt.Col.K.J.S.Sobti 80% disability. BK
Amputation (Rt)
S1H1A3P3E1
17. Maj.S.B.Sinha 60% disability. Amputation
hand (Rt) S1H1A3P1E1
18. Maj.P.Wahi 90% disability. GSW Lt Nect
with Brachial Plexus Injury Lt.
Lt arm paralysed
S1H1A3P1E1
10. The petitioner has revisited the Court, being
aggrieved of the fact that he has been held not entitled to be
allotted a car, for a second time.
11. A perusal of the writ petition would reveal,
evidenced by the averments in paras 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 14 of
the writ petition coupled with grounds F & G, that the
petitioner has predicated his case on the past events. Except
for stating that the letter intimating petitioner that his claim
was rejected is non-speaking, we do not find any averment
questioning the recommendations of the Board which met on
14th May 2008.
12. As regards the grievance that the rejection letter
conveys no reasons, suffice would it be to state that
administrative decisions pertaining to grant of largesse are not
to be equated with reasoned decisions as are contemplated,
where civil rights are impacted by administrative decisions.
13. Be that as it may, we note that the petitioner has
been considered treating him to be 60% disabled on account
of 'BK Amputation' (left leg); i.e. 'Below Knee Amputation of
left leg'.
14. A perusal of the candidates who have been held
eligible would reveal that candidates at serial No.1, 2, 3, 4, 9
and 10 are with 100% disability. Those at serial No.5, 6, 7, 8,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 have disability ranging
between 60% to 90%.
15. Relevant would it be to note that no person with
less than 60% disability has been empanelled.
16. Obviously, those with percentage disability more
than 60% would stand on a better footing than the petitioner.
The reason is obvious. Those with higher percentage of
disability would be more deserving.
17. Thus, we highlight, for purposes of comparison,
those who have been held eligible on account of 60% disability
and those would be Captain Ashok Mor (at serial No.5); Lt.
Col.P.C.Katoch (at serial No.8); Major Yudhvir Singh (at serial
No.11); Brig.P.Bhanot (at serial No.13); Col.N.K.Kakar (at serial
No.14) and Col.R.S.Tushir (at serial No.15).
18. The proceedings of the Board and the medical
papers pertaining to petitioner's disability would reveal that
though percentage disability attributed to the petitioner is
60%, the 'Symes Lt. Amputation' being at ankle and thus
giving more mobility to the petitioner, has been treated as less
disabling vis-à-vis those whose amputation was immediately
below the knee.
19. In other words, the nomenclature 'BK Amputation'
is a very wide term and would include all amputations of the
lower limb below the knee level. Commonsense tells us that
within this large category would be a range of disabilities,
some being of a higher degree and some being of a lesser
degree. To illustrate. A has the left limb amputated just below
the knee; no stump is left below the knee. B also has an
amputation below the knee, but 3 inches below. He has a
three inch stump. The difference between A and B would be
that whereas the artificial leg of A would be fastened on and
above the knee. That of B could be fastened on the stump
below the knee. It would be apparent that A's mobility would
be less, and that of B would be more.
20. We note that apart from the petitioner, other
candidates with 60% disability have been held not eligible.
These are Col.Ajit singh, Lt.Col.Rakesh Sharma, Major Rajesh
Kumar and Lt.Col. V.Vashisth.
21. We are excluding reference to others who have
been declared non eligible on a lesser percentage of disability.
22. The task of a writ court is not to reappraise the
decisions taken by experts. It is fairness in action and not
fairness of the decision which is the focus of a consideration by
a writ court.
23. Having perused the relevant record and extracted
brief summary thereof, relevant for purposes of the present
decision, we find complete fairness and transparency in the
procedure adopted by the Board. We find that the Board has
considered the relevant factors to be taken into consideration
and has eschewed reference to the non material
considerations. There is procedural fairness in the action of
the respondents and thus we dismiss the writ petition but
refrain from imposing costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(SURESH KAIT)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 09, 2011
mm
