K.J.S. BUTTAR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [2011] 4 S.C.R. 136 · Decided: 31-03-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 136 
K.J.S. BUTTAR 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5591 of 2006) 
MARCH 31, 2011 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
SERVICE LAW: 
C 
ARMED FORCES: 
Disability Pension and other consequential claims -
Army-ex-Captain - Invalided for injury attributable to military 
service - Disability assessed at 50% in Low Medical Category 
- Disability Pension granted w.e.f. 26. 7. 1979 - Claims for War 
D Injury Pension w.e.f. 1.1.1996 in terms of Ministry of Defence 
letter dated 31.1.2001 - Disability to be raised to 75% from 
50% - Grant of service element of 10 years of service instead 
of 2 years - Revision of rates of disability pension w.e.f. 
1. 1. 1996 - HELD: The restriction of the benefits only to officers 
E who were invalided out of service after 1.1.1996 is violative 
of Article 14 of the Constitution - Letter dated 31.1.2001 is 
only liberalization of the existing Scheme - Claims allowed 
with 8% interest on arrears - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 14. 
F 
The appellant, an ex-Captain, had been granted Short 
Service Commission in the Indian Army on 21.1.1969. 
While participating in the exercise conducted with live 
ammunition, he suffered gun shot on his left elbow 
G resulting into 50% disability. He was accordingly 
invalided out of service with Disability Pension w.e.f. 
26.7.1979. The appellant filed a writ petition claiming: (a) 
War Injury Pension w.e.f. 1.1.1996 In terms of Ministry of 
Defence letter dated 31.1.2001; (b) treating the disability 
H 
136 
K.J.S. BUTIAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
137 
at 75% ins.tead of 50% w.e.f. 1.1.1996 as per Ministry of A 
Defence letter dated 31.1.2001; (c) grant of service 
element for full 10 years of service instead of 2 years; and 
(d) revision of the rates of the disability .pension w.e.f. 
1.1.1996 in terms of the letter dated 31.1.2001. 
The respondents resisted the claims of the appellant 
on the ground that he had retired prior to 1.1.1996. The 
High Court declined the reliefs. Aggrieved, the pensioner 
filed the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The claim of the appellant for pension for 
B 
c 
his full 1 O years service as a Short Service Commission 
Officer, as has been held in C.S. Sidhu's case*, is justified. 
Hence the entire service of the appellant in the army has o 
to be taken into consideration for grant of Disability 
Pension and he must be given arrears with interest @ 8% 
per annum. The restriction of the benefit to only officers 
who were invalided out of service after 1.1.1996 is violative 
of Article 14 of the Constitution and hence illegal. The 
E 
letter of the Ministry of Defence datc:;d 31.1.2001 is only 
liberalization of an existing scheme. [para 9.11-12] [142-
C-F-H; 143-A] 
\ 
*Union of India & Anr. VS. C.S. Sidhu 2010(4) sec 563, 
Union of India & Anr. vs. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal 1992 
F 
Suppl.(1) SCC 323, State of Punjab vs. Justice S.S. Dewan 
(1997) 4 SCC 569, Union of India & Anr. vs. S.P.S. Vains 
(Retd.) & Ors. 2008(9) sec 125- relied on. 
1.2. The appellant was entitled to the benefit of para _G 
7 .2 of the Instructions dated 31.1.2001 according to which 
where the disability Is assessed between 50% and 75% 
then the same should be treated as 75%, and it makes 
no difference whether he was invalided from service 
before or after 1.1.1996. Therefore, the appellant was 
H 
··1 
. 
138 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 4 S.C.R. 
A entitled to the said benefits with arrears from 1.1.1996. 
[para 14] [144-F-G] 
1.3. It may be mentioned that the Government of 
India, Ministry of Defence had been granting War Injury 
B Pension to pre-1996 retirees also in terms of para 10.1 of 
Ministry's letter No.1(5)/87/D(Pen-Ser) dated 30.10.1987 
(Page 59 Para 8). The mode of calculation however was 
changed by Notification dated 31.1.2001 which was 
restricted to post 1996 retirees. The appellant, therefore, 
was entitled to the War Injury Pension even prior to 
C 1.1.1996 and especially in view of the instructions dated 
31.1.2001 issued by the Government of India. The said 
instruction was initially for personers retiring after 
1.1.1996 but later on by virtue of the subsequent 
Notifications dated 16.5.2001 it was extended to pre-1996 
D retirees also on rationalization of the scheme. [para 15) 
[144-H; 145-A-C] 
1.4. As per Para 10.1 of the Instructions dated 
31.1.2001, where an Armed Forces personnel is invalided 
E on account of disability sustained under circumstance
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.