LexUNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus TARSEM SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
[2008] 12 S.C.R. 104
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
TARSEM SINGH
(Civil Appeal No. 5151-52 of 2008)
AUGUST 13, 2008
[RV. RAVEENDRAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH ·
PANTA, JJ]
Service Law:
C
Army - Delay in claiming disability pension ..:. Claim al-
lowed by single Judge of High Court with arrears for 38 months
- DivisiOn Bench granting arrears for 16 years with 6% inter-
est - HELD: Where a service related claim is based on a con-
tinuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long de-
D lay in seeking remedy, provided the order does not affect oth-
ers - As regards consequential relief of recovery of arrears,
principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply
and High Court will restrict the relief relating to arrears nor-
mally to a period of three years prior to date of filing of writ
E petition - In the instant case, delay of 16 years would affect
the consequential claim for arrears - Division Bench of High
Court was not justified in directing payment of arrears for 16
years and that too with interest - Order of Division Bench of
High Cf:!urt set aside - Delay - Interest - Tort.
F
Tort:
Continuing wrong and recurring/successive wrongs -
Concept of, relating to service law - Explained.
Balakrishna S.P Waghmare vs. Shree Dhyaneshwar
G Maharaja Sansthan 1959(2) Supp. SCR 476=AIR 1959 SC
798; M.R. Gupta vs. Union of India 1995(2) Supp. SCR
852=1995(5) SCC 628; and Shiv Dass vs. Union of India
2007(1) SCR 1127=2007(9) SCC 274 - relied on.
H
104
{
f-
)
I t
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. TARSEM SINGH
105
[R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.]
Case Law Reference
1959(2) Supp. SCR 476
1995(2) Supp. SCR 852
2007(1) SCR 1127
relied on
relied on
relied on
para 4
para 4
para 4
A
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
B
5151-5152 of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated 06.12.2006 and
23.02.2007 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh in LP.A. No.573 of 2002 in CM No. 99 and 2007 c
B. Datta, ASG., Ashok K. Srivastava and B. Krishna
Prasad for the Appellants.
Neeraj Kr. Jain and Ugra Shankar Prasad for the Respon-
dent.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. Leave granted. Heard learned
counsel for the parties.
D
2. The respondent while working in the Indian Army was
E
invalidated out of Army service, in medical category, on
13.11.1983. He approached the High Court in 1999 seeking a
direction to the appellants to pay him disability pension. A
learned Single Judge by order dated 6.12.2000 allowed the
writ petition and directed the appellants to grant him disability F
pension at the rates permissible. In so far as arrears, the relief
was restricted to 38 months prior to the filing of the writ petition.
The respondent was also directed to appear before the Re-
survey Medical Board as and when called upon by the appel-
lants. The appellants did not contest the said decision and
G
granted disability pension to respondents and also released
the arrears of disability pension for 38 months.
3. The respondent however was not satisfied. According
to him the disability pension ought to be paid from the date it
fell due on 13.11.1983. He therefore fUed a Letters Patent Ap-
H
106
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 12 S.C.R.
A
peal. The said appeal was allowed by the Division Bench of the
{
High Court by judgment dated 6.12.2006. The Division Bench
held that the respondent was entitled to disability pension from
the date it fell due, and it should not be r~stricted to a period of
f
three years and two months prior to the filing of the writ petition.
By a subsequent modification order dated 23.2.2007, the Divi-
)
B
"
sion Bench also granted interest on the arrears at the rate of
6% per annum. The said judgment and order of the Division
)t.
Bench is challenged in this appeal. The only question that there-
fore arises for our consideration is whether the High Court was
c justified in directing payment of arrears for a period of 16 years
instead of restricting it to three years.
4. The principles underlying continuing wrongs and recur-
ring/ successive wrongs have been applied to service law dis-
putes. A 'continuing wrong' refers to a single wrongful act which
D causes a continuing injury. 'Recurring/successive wrongs' are
those which occur periodically, each wrong giving rise to a dis-
tinct and separate cause of action. This Court in Balt:Jkrishna
,¥
S.P. Waghmare vs. Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan -
~
[AIR 1Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.