Shiv Karan vs Union Of India ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7366 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:30405-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13333/2023

Shiv Karan S/o Late Sh. Choga Ram, Aged About 76 Years, By Caste Bisnoi, Resident of Vill And Post Rootu, Tehsil Jayal, Distt. Nagaur (Raj.) (Ex Recruit Invalided Out From Army Service On 01.12.1966 (An)).

----Petitioner Versus

1. Union of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Defence, New Delhi-110011.

2. The Chief Of The Army Staff, Army Headquarters, DHQ, P.O. New Delhi-110011.

3. The Principal Controller of Defence, Accounts (Pension), Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad (UP)-211014.

4. Eme Records, Pin-900 453, C/o 56 APO.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmpal Singh Dhaka For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, Dy. S.G.

assisted by Ms. Dimple Rajpurohit

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

Order

19/09/2023

1. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has

challenged the order dated 19.07.2022 passed by the Armed

Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Jaipur, Circuit Bench, Jodhpur

(hereinafter to be referred as "the Tribunal"), whereby the

application filed by the petitioner under Section 14 of the Armed

Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (for short 'the Act of 2007') has been

rejected.

[2023:RJ-JD:30405-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-13333/2023]

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was enrolled in

the army on 18.02.1966 and was invalided out from service on

medical grounds on 02.12.1966 without any pensionary benefits.

3. In the year 2019, the petitioner has filed an application

under Section 14 of the Act of 2007 before the Tribunal with a

prayer to direct the respondents for grant of disability pension @

20% i.e. from 02.12.1966 along with rounding off benefits.

However, it is prayed that the arrears may be restricted three

years prior to filing the original application.

4. The claim of the petitioner was contested by the respondents

and it was submitted that the service documents of the applicant

have been destroyed after expiry of retention period and no

details are available with them. It is further contended that as the

petitioner was discharged from service after rendering only 287

days of service and his disability pension claim was rejected by

the PCDA(P) vide letter dated 04.09.1967. It was further

contended that the details of attributality/aggravation and

duration are not mentioned in the service particulars of the

petitioner.

5. It is specifically urged on behalf of the respondents that the

petitioner remained silent for more than 52 years and did not

prefer any appeal against the discharge order. It is further claimed

that the petitioner was fully knowing that his service documents

have been destroyed after expiry of retention period and,

therefore, he has approached the Tribunal only with the intention

to take undue benefits.

[2023:RJ-JD:30405-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-13333/2023]

6. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the rival stands

of the parties, has narrowed down the controversy in following two

issues:-

"(i) Whether there is any record available to suggest that the petitioner is invalided out of service?

(ii) Whether inordinate delay of 52 years in filing this application has any merit?"

7. On the first issue, the Tribunal has observed that the long

roll is the only document retained after destruction of documents

and it contains all minimum essential details of the petitioner, in

which, there is no mention of medical condition of the petitioner. It

is further observed by the Tribunal that the petitioner has failed to

substantiate his claim that he was suffering from a disease i.e.

"Dracontiasis" at the time of discharge from the service. The

Tribunal is of the view that even if it is assumed that the petitioner

was suffering from the said disease, then it is also extremely

implausible to hold that as a trainee, with only 287 days of

training, he suffered the said disease, which resulted into his

discharge from the service.

8. The Tribunal, while deciding the second issue, has placed

reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in

C. Jacob Vs. Director of Geology and Mining & Anr. reported

in (2008) 10 SCC 115 and judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High

court in the case of Inderpal Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.

in Civil Writ Petition No.8524/2000 decided on 04.08.2004 and

held that in view of the above referred decisions, the delay of

around 50 years cannot be condoned.

[2023:RJ-JD:30405-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-13333/2023]

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that earlier, the

Tribunal in identical cases, has granted relief to the applicants

despite long delays. Learned counsel has further submitted that it

is not in dispute that the petitioner was discharged from the

services on account of "Dracontiasis" and that too attributed to the

service conditions. It is further submitted that in view of various

decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Tribunal,

the petitioner is entitled to get the relief as claimed by him before

the Tribunal.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going

through the material available on record, we are of the view that

the reasons assigned by the Tribunal while dismissing the

application filed by the petitioner vide impugned order dated

19.07.2022 are in accordance with law and do not call for any

interference by this Court.

11. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is

dismissed.

(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (VIJAY BISHNOI),J

2-Payal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)