Madan Prasad Sinha@ Sanatan Baba vs Union Of India

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 11485 OF 2018

MADAN PRASAD SINHA @ SANATAN BABA Appellant(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)

O R D E R

The only issue which arises for determination in the

present appeal is with regard to the grant of disability

pension to the appellant.

The appellant was enrolled in the Corps of Signals of the

Indian Army as a Radio Mechanic on 18 February 1971.

On 18 August 1981, he was discharged from military

service under Army Rule 13(3) on account of being placed in a

low medical category.

The case of the appellant is that he suffered from a

Chronic Duodenal Ulcer as a result of his participation in Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MANISH SETHI Date: 2019.04.10 Operation Cactus Lilly in 1971.

16:40:45 IST Reason:

The appellant moved the Armed Forces Tribunal 1 for the

1 “Tribunal” 2

grant of war injury pension. The Tribunal declined to accede

to the plea for the grant of war injury pension on the ground

that it was payable only in respect of participation in

operations or in the active line of duty. In the present case,

it was the view of the Tribunal that the nature of the

disability was not attributable to any such participation in

action. This view of the Tribunal is correct.

On 26 November 2018, the following order was passed by

this Court:

“Delay condoned.

Application seeking leave to appeal is allowed.

The submission which has been urged on behalf of the petitioner is that his claim for the grant of disability pension for the period between 1996 and 2014 has not been considered since it was in 2014 that he was granted the disability pension for the period thereafter. Issue notice confined to this question returnable within four weeks.

Liberty to serve the additional copy on the Central Agency.

Application for exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned judgment is allowed.”

Notice was confined to the issue as to whether the

appellant should be granted disability pension between 1996 and

2014.

In the counter affidavit which has been filed on behalf

of the respondents, a chart has been submitted, making a

reference to the Re-Survey Medical Boards which had assessed

the extent of disability so as to facilitate a decision on the

claim for the grant of disability pension. 3

The chart indicates that initially the extent of

disability was determined at 40% for two years with effect from

14 July 1985. Subsequently, the disability was assessed at 20%

for two years with effect from 17 July 1987; at 30% for five

years with effect from 17 July 1990; and at 20% for ten years

with effect from 23 March 1994. However, it appears that the

PCDA(P), Allahabad re-assessed the disability at less than 20%

on 8 May 1995. As a result of this, the appellant did not

receive disability pension with effect from 24 March 1995.

With effect from 30 January 2014, the disability of the

appellant was assessed at 20% on a permanent basis for life by

the Military Hospital, Danapur Cantt. The above narration of

facts would indicate that the position as it stands pursuant to

the assessment done by the Military Hospital with effect from

30 January 2014 is that the appellant suffers from 20%

disability which is assessed for life. He has received

disability pension thereafter.

In this background, we are of the view that the denial of

disability pension to the appellant for the period between 24

March 1995 and 30 January 2014 was misconceived. The disability

element has already been rounded off in pursuance of the

previous order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal.

We accordingly, allow the appeal and direct that the

appellant shall be granted arrears on account of disability

pension in accordance with the applicable rates prevalent at

the relevant time between 24 March 1995 and 30 January 2014.

The computation shall be carried out and arrears shall be 4

paid over to the appellant within a period of three months from

the date of receipt of this order.

The civil appeal is accordingly, allowed. No costs.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

..............................J. (DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD)

..............................J. (HEMANT GUPTA)

NEW DELHI APRIL 8, 2019 5

ITEM NO.56 COURT NO.11 SECTION XVII

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No(s). 11485/2018

MADAN PRASAD SINHA@ SANATAN BABA Appellant(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)

Date : 08-04-2019 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

For Appellant(s) Mr. J.S. Attri, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Narender Singh, Adv.

Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Chandra Nand Jha, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv.

Mr. B.K. Satija, Adv.

Ms. Alka Agrawal, Adv.

Mr. Tanvir Nayar, Adv.

Mr. A.K. Sharma, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

The Civil Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed reportable

order.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(MANISH SETHI) (SUNIL KUMAR RAJVANSHI) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER

(Signed reportable order is placed on the file)