Delhi High Court
Baljit Singh vs Union Of India And Anr on 24 July, 2012
Author: Gita Mittal
13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C)No.7321/2011 and CM No.2389/2012
% Date of decision: 24th July, 2012
BALJIT SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. S.M. Hooda, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Ms. Barkha Babbar, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
W.P.(C) 7321/2011
1. The petitioner by way of the present writ petition assails
the order dated 30th September, 2010 passed by the Armed
Forces Tribunal dismissing his petition seeking setting aside of
the speaking order dated 8th April, 2004 rejecting the claim for
grant of disability pension.
2. It appears that the petitioner had suffered injury on 16th
January, 1999 outside his accommodation. The petitioner
suffered a fracture in the neck of the right femur bone and also
was suffering from osteoarthritis in the right hip. The
petitioner was to be released from service and consequently a
Release Medical Board was held prior to his discharge on 31 st
December, 2001. The Release Medical Board assessed the
following disability percentage of the petitioner:-
(a) Fracture neck Femur Rt Optd : 20% for 2 years
(b) Ostoarthritis Rt Hip : 15-19% for 2 years.
3. Based on the above assessment, the composite disability
for both disabilities was assessed at 30% for two years. The
Release Medical Board also held that the disabilities which the
petitioner suffered during his service were neither attributable
to nor aggravated by his airforce service. The petitioner's
disability pension claim was taken up for adjudication with
Pension Sanctioning Authority i.e. PCDA(P) Allahabad in
consultation with the Medical Advisor (Pension) attached to
them by an order dated 25th February, 2003. The PCDA upheld
the findings of the Release Medical Board noticed hereinabove
and rejected the claim of the petitioner for award of the
disability element of the pension. The petitioner was
discharged from service w.e.f. 31st December, 2001.
4. Aggrieved by the rejection of his claim by the PCDA, the
petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(C)No.5363/2003 in this court
praying for grant of disability pension. This writ petition was
disposed of by an order passed on 27th November, 2003
directing the respondents to dispose of the case in terms of the
earlier judgment dated 6th March, 2003 passed in
W.P.(C)No.5166/2000 entitled Ex.Constable Jasbir Singh v.
Union of India & Ors. and connected petitions.
5. The respondents disposed of the petitioner's claim for
disability pension by a detailed speaking order dated 8 th April,
2004.
6. The petitioner assailed the order dated 8 th April, 2004 by
way of W.P.(C)No.7153/2004 in this court still seeking a
direction to the respondents to pay 50% disability element
pension w.e.f. 1st January, 2002 and the arrears and interest
thereon as well as 50% amount of group insurance.
7. Simultaneously, the petitioner also preferred an appeal
dated 24th December, 2003 against the rejection of his claim
by the PCDA(P) Allahabad. The Appeal Committee rejected the
appeal by an order dated 14th November, 2005 concluding that
the disabilities from which the petitioner was suffering on
which his claim for disability pension was based, were neither
attributable to nor aggravated by military service.
8. The respondents have pointed out that directions were
made on 11th July, 2008 in the petitioner's
W.P.(C)No.7153/2004 directing that the Appeal Medical Board
be conducted. Accordingly, an Appeal Medical Board of the
petitioner was conducted on 22nd September, 2008 at the Base
Hospital, Delhi Camp for examining the attributability of the
disabilities. The Appeal Medical Board has also held both
disabilities to be neither attributable to nor aggravated by the
petitioner's service with the airforce. The percentage disability
of the petitioner was assessed at 20% for life and composite
40% for life.
9. In this background and given the findings of the Release
Medical Board as well as Appeal Medical Board, the
respondents held the petitioner ineligible for grant of disability
pension which decision was communicated to him by an order
dated 24th October, 2008.
10. The respondents have pointed out that the Second
Appeal Committee also considered the case of the petitioner.
By a communication dated 4th March, 2009, this second appeal
by the petitioner was also rejected by the Ministry of Defence.
11. The petitioner challenged the aforenoticed speaking
order of the Ministry of Defence and sought grant of 50%
disability element of pension w.e.f. 1st January, 2002 in the
revised rate from 1st January, 2006 by way of a petition being
O.A.No.260/2010 before the Armed Forces Tribunal (Division
Bench), New Delhi. The Armed Forces Tribunal has dismissed
the said petition by an order dated 30 th September, 2010
upholding that the injury suffered by the petitioner was not
suffered by him on duty and was neither attributable to nor
aggravated by his service and thus disentitled the petitioner
for grant of disability pension.
12. The present writ petition has been filed before this court,
assailing the order dated 30th September, 2010 passed by the
Armed Forces Tribunal, again praying for a direction to the
respondents to make payment of 50% disability element of
pension w.e.f. 1st January, 2002. The petitioner claims that
injury was suffered while he was returning from duty.
13. We find that the order dated 30th September, 2010 of the
Armed Forces Tribunal is based on the original record of the
petitioner's case which was examined by the tribunal. The
Armed Forces Tribunal has noticed the following statement
made by the petitioner:-
"I, 266031 - N WO BS Dhaker of 3 Wing, AF state
that I fell down (and) hit with a stone in front of
my house No.49/6 at 2015 hrs at Pinto Park, New
Delhi."
14. The impugned order also extensively deals with the
report by the medical authorities to the effect that the injuries
suffered by the petitioner were neither attributable to nor
aggravated by his airforce service. The two medical boards
have also observed the same. It is nowhere on record that the
petitioner has ever claimed that the injuries were suffered by
him while he was on duty. The petitioner's Commanding
Officer, Group Captain Sood has also observed that the
petitioner's injury was neither attributable to nor aggravated
by his airforce service before dispensing with the Court of
Inquiry in terms of para 796 (c) (ix) Regulations for the Airforce
Act, 1964.
15. The petitioner has contended that the Medical Board
could have only assessed the disability of the petitioner and
was not competent to give an opinion on the attributability or
aggravation of the injury by the service. We find that even if
the findings of the Medical Board to this effect were ignored,
the Air Force with which the petitioner was engaged, had also
held that the injuries were not attributable to or aggravated by
his service.
16. In this background, the case of the petitioner before this
court to the effect that his injuries were attributable to and
aggravated by his military service and the bald statement in
the writ petition that he suffered the injury while on duty
cannot be accepted. The impugned judgment is based on the
records of the respondents. No legal infirmity has been
pointed out.
We find no merit in this writ petition which is hereby
dismissed.
CM No.2389/2012
In view of the order passed in the main writ petition, this
application does not survive for adjudication and thus hereby
dismissed.
GITA MITTAL, J
J.R. MIDHA, J
JULY 24, 2012
aj
