Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Ors vs No.7045450 Ex. Nk Shri Ram Shalpad S/O ... on 23 October, 2024
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Sudeepti Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142559-DB
CWP-918-2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP-918-2024
Reserved on: 25.09.2024
Pronounced on: 23.10.2024
Union of India and Ors. .....Petitioners
Versus
Ex Nk Shri Ram Shalpad .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Argued by: Ms. Neha Jain, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocate with
Mr. Ajay Sheoran, Advocate and
Mr. Roopam Atwal, Advocate
for the respondent.
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner herein-
Union of India, prays for setting aside the order dated 04.01.2023
(Annexure P-6), as passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal
concerned, wherebys the claim of the respondent for grant of disability
pension was allowed.
Factual Background
2. The respondent joined Army on 17.04.1961 in a fit state of
health and was invalidated out from service on 20.08.1974 in Low
Medical Category on completion of 13 years, 4 months and 3 days of
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142559-DB
service with disability "Below Knee Amputation RT Effects of E-819,
N-897. The medical board considered the disability as 'attributed to
service and assessed the same @ 70% for two years'.
3. The respondent sustained injuries in MT accident in field
area, while he was driving car 5CWT 4x4 Jeep Willys BA No. WB-33-
996 of 5 Sikh Regiment which was going to 10 Garhwal Rifle Location
for conveyance of personnel of 10 Garhwal near village Ratanpur. A
Court of Inquiry was constituted and during inquiry, they found that at
the relevant time, the respondent was driving vehicle under the
influence of alcohol and without obtaining the permission of the
competent authority.
4. Accordingly, the disability pension claim of the respondent
was rejected by PCDA (P) Allahabad vide order dated 04.02.1976, by
stating that the disability was neither attributable to nor being
aggravated by military service.
5. Thereafter, in the year 2019, the respondent filed O.A.
before the learned Tribunal concerned for setting aside the afore
rejection order and to grant him the war injury pension @ 70 % for life.
The said O.A., became allowed vide order dated 04.01.2023. The
operative part of the said order is extracted hereinafter.
"6. The crux of the law laid down in the judgments cited
supra is that an authority like Principal Controller of
Defence Accounts cannot sit over the expert opinion given
by a duly constituted Medical Board. Considering the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also the
attending circumstances, the rejection of the claim of the
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142559-DB
applicant for disability pension is neither legally nor
factually sustainable. The applicant, therefore, is entitled
to the grant of disability pension which consists of
disability element and disability pension (Both) for life
instead of invalid pension already sanctioned from the
date of invalidation from military service i.e. 19.08.1974.
7. For all the reasons, hereinabove, this application
succeeds and is accordingly set aside and quashed. The
applicant is held entitled to the grant of disability pension
@ 70 % from the day next to the date of invalidation i.e.
20.08.1974 to 31.12.1995 and @ 75 % as against 70 % for
life after being rounded off as per the ratio of the judgment
of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 418/2012 titled
Union of India Vs. Ram Avtar decided on
10.12.2014................ "
6. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid order as passed upon
the O.A. (supra) by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal concerned, the
petitioner-Union of India has filed thereagainst the instant writ petition
before this Court.
Inferences of this Court.
7. Before proceeding to make an effective adjudication upon
the present writ petition, it is relevant to extract the opinion of the
Commander 52 Infantry Brigade, on the proceedings of the Court of
Inquiry. The relevant contents whereof, are extracted hereinafter.
" I concur with the opinion of the Court. The accident to
Car 5 cwt 4 x 4 Jeep Willys BA No. WB-33996 belonging to 5 SIKH has
occurred primarily due to the poor judgment on the part of No
7045450 Nk (Veh Mech) SHRI RAM who was driving the veh under the
effects of alcohol at the time of accident.
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142559-DB
2. I direct that disciplinary action be taken against the
following personnel for reasons stated against each :-
a) No 7045450 Nk (Veh Mech) Shri Ram for driving a veh
under the effects of alcohol and without obtaining the permission of
competent authority.
b) No 3348885 L/Hav Kapur Singh for negligent
performance of duties as P1 MT Hav in that he did not effectively
prevent No. 7045450 Nk (Veh Mech) Shri Ram from driving the said
veh. The fact that the vehicle with key was available for Nk (Veh Mech)
Shri Ram to drive point to the negligent performance of his duties.
c) No 3363127 Sep Kuldip Singh for leaving the key in the
veh against existing unit orders on the subject.
3. The injury sustained by No. 7045450 Nk (Veh Mech) Shri
Ram and death of No 7072303 Brij Lal both of 5 Sikh are
attributable to military service in a field area."
8. The reason assigned by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal
to conclude that the disability supra, as became entailed upon the
respondent, became so entailed during service, became banked upon the
opinion supra made by the medical board. The opinion supra of the
expert body, thus became declared to be unamenable to become
tinkered or reviewed by the Principal Controller of the Defence
Accounts, who however was not an expert. Moreover, with the Court of
Inquiry also concluding that 'the injury sustained by No. 7045450 Nk
(Veh Mech) Shri Ram and death of No 7072303 Brij Lal both of 5
Sikh are attributable to military service in a field area.' If so, the
reliance(s) made upon the said findings were required to be revered, as
aptly done by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal concerned.
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142559-DB
9. Though, it appears that the Court of Inquiry also recorded a
finding that at the relevant time, the present respondent was inebriated,
therebys, the ill fated accident which resulted in the entailment of the
apposite disability upon him, became concluded to arise from his
negligence arising from his consuming alcohol. However, since there is
no evidence to support the said fact, therebys, the said findings cannot
be accepted nor thereby the opinion of the medical board rather can
become annulled.
10. Moreover, when the findings which occur at the end of the
Court of Inquiry, and which are to be also revered when declare that the
disability, as became entailed upon the present respondent became so
entailed during the performance of his military service, therebys,
besides when no cogent rebuttal thereto evidence became adduced nor
when any further evidence became adduced, thus suggestive, that the
said entailed disability was a sequel of his driving the vehicle in an
evident state of intoxication. Consequently, it has to be declared that the
present respondent was driving the vehicle concerned, in a fit state of
mind, or he was driving the apposite vehicle while he was not
inebriated, rather the accident which resulted in the entailment of the
apposite disability, hence was a sequel of emergence of a fortuitous
circumstance(s).
Final Order of this Court.
11. In aftermath, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition
and with observations above, the same is dismissed.
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142559-DB
12. The impugned order, as passed by the learned Tribunal
concerned, is maintained and affirmed.
13. Disposed of alongwith all pending application(s), if any.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
23.10.2024 JUDGE
kavneet singh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
