PANI RAM versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 1024 · Decided: 17-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1024
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
   [2021] 9 S.C.R. 1024
1024
PANI RAM
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2275 of 2019)
DECEMBER 17, 2021
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Territorial Army Act, 1948 – s.9 – Pension Regulations for
the Army, 1961 – Chapters 3, 5 – Regulation Nos.173, 292 –
Appellant having served in Infantry of the Regular Army was re-
enrolled in the Territorial army – Met with an accident while
returning from annual leave to rejoin the duty – Right leg amputated
upto knee – Disability assessed to be 80% – Appellant invalided
out of service – Sought grant of disability pension – Claim rejected
by Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) – Appellant applied for grant of
leave to appeal which was allowed by the AFT but with a different
question of law than the one framed by the appellant – Held: A
conjoint reading of s.9, 1948 Act and Regulation Nos. 292, 173 of
the 1961 Regulations show that a member of the Territorial Army
would be entitled to disability pension – When the appellant is
enrolled as a member of Ecological Task Force (ETF) which is a
company for 130 Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army), there is no
reason as to why the appellant was denied the disability pension –
Specifically so, when the Medical Board and Court of Inquiry (COI)
found that the injury sustained by the appellant was attributable to
the military service and was not due to his own negligence – Order
passed by AFT set aside – Respondent to grant disability pension to
the appellant with arrears – Army Act, 1950 – Constitution of India
– Art.14 – Service law.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Every such officer or enrolled person in
Territorial Army when holds the rank, shall be subject to the
provisions of Army Act, 1950 and the rules or regulations made
thereunder, equivalent to the same rank in the Regular Army.
Chapter 5 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 deals
with Territorial Army. From the Regulation No. 292 therein it
can be seen that the grant of pensionary awards to the members
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1025
of the Territorial Army shall be governed by the same rules and
regulations as are applicable to the corresponding persons of
the Army except where they are inconsistent with the provisions
of regulations in the said chapter. Chapter 3 of the Pension
Regulations for the Army, 1961, deals with Disability Pensionary
Awards. The perusal of Regulation No. 173 therein will reveal
that an individual who is invalided out of service on account of
disability, which is attributable or aggravated by Military Service
in non-battle casualty and is assessed 20% or more, would be
entitled to disability pension. The respondents did not point any
rules or regulations, which can be said to be inconsistent with
Regulation No. 292 or 173, neither has any other regulation been
pointed out which deals with the terms and conditions of service
of ETF. [Paras 14-18][1030-A-H]
1.2 The ETF is established as an additional company for
130 Infantry Battalion of Territorial Army. It is not in dispute that
the other officers or enrolled persons working in the Territorial
Army are entitled to disability pension under Regulation No. 173
read with Regulation No. 292 of Pension Regulations for the Army,
1961. When the appellant is enrolled as a member of ETF which
is a company for 130 Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army), there
is no reason as to why the appellant was denied the disability
pension. Specifically so, when the Medical Board and COI have
found that the injury sustained by the appellant was attributable
to the Military Service and it was not due to his own negligence.
[Para 20][1031-A-C]
1.3 In case of conflict between what is stated in internal
communication between the two organs of the State and the
Statutory Rules and Regulations, the Statutory Rules and
Regulations would prevail. AFT was not justified in rejecting the
claim of the appellant. The respondents heavily relied on the
document titled “Certificate”. No doubt that the said document
is signed by the appellant, wherein he agreed to the condition
that he will not be getting any enhanced pension for having been
enrolled in this force. Firstly, the said document deals with
enhanced pension and not disability pension. A conjoint reading
of Section 9 of the Territorial Army Act, 1948 and Regulation
Nos. 292 and 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961,
PANI RAM v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1026
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[

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