UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus DHIR SINGH CHINA, COLONEL (RETD.)

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 779 · Decided: 04-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
A 
v. 
DHIR SINGH CHINA. COLONEL (RETD.) 
FEBRUARY 4, 2003 
(N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND B.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Armed Forces-Pension Regulations; Regulation 53: 
c 
Disability Pension to a retired military officer-Entitlement t<>-Held, 
-+ 
since in the opinion of Medical Board disabilities which incumbent/pensioner 
was suffering v.1ere neither allributable to nor aggravated by 1nilitary service 
and H1ere in the nature of constitutional disease, incumbent/pensioner not 
entitled to benefit of disability pension-Regulotion 53 not attracted-
Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pension Awards, 1982; Rule 4 . 
D 
. ( 
Respondent-pensioner, a military officer, was suffering from 
disability to the extent of 60% at the time of his retirement. The Medical 
Board opined that diseas1's responsible for such disability were neither 
attributable nor aggra"ated by military service and were constitutional E 
in nature. Respondent's claim for disability pension was rejected by the 
Government. The Writ Petition was allowed by the Single Judge of the 
High Court and pending appeal before the Division Bench of the High 
Court, the President sanctioned disability pension to respondent in 
compliance with order of the Single Judge and sanction order for payment 
of disability pension was issued. Though Division Bench did not approve F 
the finding of Single Judge granting him benefit under Rule 4 of 
Entitlement Rules, it affirmed the order granting disability pension to 
respondent under Regulation 53 of the Pension Regulations. Hence the 
present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
G 
+ 
HELD: I. I. The President sanctioned payment of disability pension 
to the respondent with a view to implement, and in obedience to the 
order of the Single Judge of the High Court. The sanction was, however,. 
without prejudice to the final outcome of the Letters Patent Appeal 
H 
779 
780 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003] I S.C.R. 
A pending before the Division Bench. The disability element of pension has 
been sanctioned till further order. This again makes it quite clear that the 
sanction is tentative and subject to the pending proceedings. The sanction 
was also necessary since pending the proceedings before the High Court 
the appellants could not predict the outcome of the legal proceedings. · 
B 
1783-E-F-H; 784-Bf 
1.2. In the opinion of the Medical Board the two disabilities from 
which the respondent was suffering were not attributable to or aggravated 
by military service and were in the nature of constitutional diseases. The 
opinion has not been assailed in this proceeding and, therefore, accepted. 
C The opinion of the Medical Board clearly ruled out the applicability of 
Regulation 53 to the case of the respondent. The respondent can derive 
no benefit from Regulation 53. But the payments already made by way of 
disability pension shall not be recovered from the pensioner. 
1782-G-H; 783-A; 784-DI 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6407 of 
2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.1.2001 of the High Court of 
Punjab and Haryana in LPA 216 of 2001. 
E 
Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General, Hemant Sharma, R.N. Poddar, Mrs. 
F 
Anil Katiyar and B.V. Bairam Das for the Appellants. 
Suresh Kumari, S.K. Sabharwal, R.D. Upadhyay, Seeraj Bagga and 
Mrs. Sureshta Bagga for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B.P. SINGH, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the 
judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh 
dated 24th January, 2001 in LPA No. 216 of 2001 whereby the appellate 
G Bench dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants-Union of India and 
others upholding the claim of the respondent to disability pension under 
Regulation 53 of the Pension Regulations. Earlier a learned Single Judge of 
the High Court had allowed the writ petition of the respondent herein upholding 
+ 
his claim for disability pension under the aforesaid Regulation 53 as also 
under Rule 4 of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensioners Awards, 1982 
H (hereinafter referred to as 'the Entitlement Rules'). The learned Judge 
+ 
• 
U.0.1. v. DHIR SINGH CHINA [B.P. SINGH, J.] • 
781 
accordingly directed the appellants to release the disability pension of the A 
respondent according to Rules and Regulations. 
The facts of the case are that the respondent was commissioned in the 
Indian Army in May, 1964. He served the Indian Army for many years and 
ultim
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.