P.K.KAPUR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 128 · Decided: 01-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
P.K.KAPUR 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 
FEBRUARY I, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Pension-Fixation of pension on superannuation of Commissioned 
C Officer in Army injured in war-0.M. No. l(S)/87/D dated 30.10.1987 and 
O.M. dated 3.2.2000-0fficer superannuated on 30.11.1989-lnjury disability 
assessed at 30'!/,,--Allowed weightage of 5+ 3 years-Refrxation of pension 
after Report of Fifth Pay Commission giving weightage of 5 years-Officer 
claiming weightage of 8 years and "enhancement of percentage of disability" 
D as also claiming to be treated as invalided from service for the purpose of 
grant of disability pension in terms of O.M. dated 3.2.2000-Held, officer was 
entitled to weightage of 5, but as a consequence of integrated pay scale with 
5 years weightage he was entitled to less pension than that of a Major, 
therefore, to protect his pension, he was given additional 3 years-Pursuant 
to Report of Fifth Pay Commission, since he was getting pension more than 
E that of a Major he was rightly given weightage of 5 years-Weightage has 
nexus with the last Rank, therefore, is not violative of Article 14 of the 
Constitution-In terms of O.M. dated 3.2.2000 enhancement of percentage of 
disability is applicable to those who were in service on or after 1.1.1996-
Provision not applicable to the Officer who retired on superannuation prior 
F to 1.1.1996-Besides, Officer was not invalided out of service-Therefore, he 
cannot be treated as invalided for purposes of grant of disability pension-
Constitution of India-Article 14-Fixing of cut off date. 
Appellant, a Commissioned Officer in the Army, got injured in the 1965 
war. After the war he was retained in service. He superannuated on 
G 30.l I.1989 on completion of 51 years of age after putting in 26 years of 
service. Before his retirement he was subjected to examination by the Medical 
Board which assessed his war injury disability at 30% permanent for life. 
His pension was fixed allowing him weightage of 5+3 years so that his pension 
remained more than that of a Major. He got the benefit of 8 years weightage 
H 
128 
-
.l 
P.K. KAPUR v. U.0.1. 
129 
_,._ 
forten years till 25.10.1999. Pursuant to the Fifth Pay Commission Report A 
his pension was revised giving him weightage of 5 years and the protected 
weightage of 3 years (8-5) stood withdrawn. This was challenged by the 
appellant in a writ petition before the High Court. He also claimed 
enhancement of percentage of disability from 30% to 50% under Government 
of India, Ministry of Personnel Circular No. 45/22/97-P&PW (C) dated B 
3.2.2000. The High Court dismissed the writ petition. 
It was contended by the appellant, who appeared in person, that he had 
"t· 
been given a weightage of8 years from 30.11.1989 to 25.10.1999 and there 
was no reason for reducing the weightage from 8 to 5 after the report of the 
Fifth Pay Commission, and in any case the policy offixing different weightages C 
for different ranks was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the 
Constitution; that "enhancement of percentage of disability" by Government 
oflndia O.M. dated 3.2.2000 for Armed Officers in service on or after 1.1.1996 
and denying the said benefit to pre 1.1. 1996 retirees by fixing the cut-off date 
of 1.1.1996 was arbitrary, irrational and violative of Article 14 of the 
Constitution. The appellant also claimed war injury pension at the current D 
rate. It was submitted that he was released in a lower medical category from 
service on 30. 11.1989 than what he was at the time of recruitment and, 
~ 
therefore, he should be treated as invalided from service with effect from the 
date of release for the purpose of grant of disability pension. 
Dismi~sing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The very definition of the words "qualifying service" in the 
O.M. dated 30.10.87 indicates that the weightage (in years) is given appropriate 
to the last Rank held. Thus, weightage has a nexus with the Ranks. Applying 
E 
this O.M. to the facts of the present case the appellant was all throughout F 
entitled to weightage of 5 but at the relevant time when he retired in 1989 
there existed the integrated pay scale, and in the said pay scale with 5 years 
weightage the appellant was entitled to pension the quantum whereof was less 
than that of a Major. To protect his pension, he was given a weightage of 3 
additional points (in years). However, with the coming into force of the Fifth 
Pay Co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.