MADAN PRASAD SINHA @ SANATAN BABA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 5 S.C.R. 761 · Decided: 08-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
761
MADAN PRASAD SINHA @ SANATAN BABA
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 11485 of 2018)
APRIL 08, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Armed Forces: Disability pension – Grant of – Appellant
enrolled as Radio Mechanic in 1971 – Ten years later, appellant
discharged from military service on account of being placed in a
low medical category – Appellant sought grant of war injury
pension, however, denied by the tribunal – In the year 2014,
appellant granted disability pension, for the period thereafter –
Appellant seeking disability pension between 1996 and 2014 – On
appeal, held: Chart assessing disability indicates that the extent of
disability was determined at 20% for ten years with effect from 23
March 1994 – However, PCDA (P) Allahabad re-assessed the
disability at less than 20% on 8 May 1995, as such the appellant
did not receive disability pension with effect from 24 March 1995 –
With effect from 30 January 2014, the Military Hospital assessed
the disability of the appellant at 20% on a permanent basis for life
and the appellant has received disability pension thereafter – In
view thereof, the denial of disability pension to the appellant for
the period between 24 March 1995 and 30 January 2014 was
misconceived – Appellant to be grant 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.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11485
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.07.2018 of the  Armed
Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 19 of 2017
with M.A. No. 764 of 2018/final order dated 17.09.2018 in M.A. No.
1521 in O.A. No. 19 of 2017 with M.A. No. 764 of 2018.
J. S. Attri, Sr. Adv., Narender Singh, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,
Chandra Nand Jha. Advs. for the Appellant.
   [2019] 5 S.C.R. 761
761
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
762
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv., Prashant Singh, B. K. Satija,
Ms. Alka Agrawal, Tanvir Nayar, A. K. Sharma, Advs. for the
Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was passed :
O R D E R
1. The only issue which arises for determination in the present
appeal is with regard to the grant of disability pension to the appellant.
2. The appellant was enrolled in the Corps of Signals of the  Indian
Army as a Radio Mechanic on 18 February 1971.
3. 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.
4. The case of the appellant is that he suffered from a Chronic
Duodenal Ulcer as a result of his participation in Operation Cactus Lilly
in 1971.
5. The appellant moved the Armed Forces Tribunal1 for the 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.
6. 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.
1“Tribunal”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
763
Liberty to serve the additional copy on the Central Agency.
Application for exemption from filing certified copy of the
impugned judgment is allowed.”
7. Notice was confined to the issue as to whether the appellant
should be granted disability pension between 1996 and 2014.
8. 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.
9. 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; an

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.