Surjit Singh v. The Union of India & Ors.

Judgment

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Present : Mr. R.S. Bains, Advocate for the petitioner. Dr. Urmil Gupta, Govt. Standing counsel for Union of India. **** RITU BAHRI, J. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order Annexure P- 3 vide which the petitioner has been dismissed from Army under Army Act Section 20 read with Army Rule 17. The petitioner states that he was suffering from mental disease since 1982 caused by service conditions and was placed in low medical category prior to 1984. On the night of 7/8th June 1984, 387 other ranks of 9 Sikhs had left the unit lines due to the emotional stress caused by operation blue star in Punjab and the army action in C.W.P. No. 11205 of 1990 -2- the Golden Temple, Amritsar. A Court of enquiry was ordered by the headquarter 24 infantry division to investigate into the circumstances in which the troops left the unit lines. The petitioner was given a charge-sheet on 10.8.1985 Annexure P-1. A show cause notice dated 17.2.1985 was issued calling upon to show cause as to why award of dismissal from service in terms of Army Act 20(3) read with Army Rule 17 be not taken against him. Vide Annexure P-3 dated

29.3.1986, the petitioner was dismissed from service by the Lt. Col. L. Harish, Commanding Officer, 15 Bihar. After the dismissal order, the petitioner preferred a statutory complaint dated 2911.1986 (Annexure P-4) under Army Act Section 26 to the General Officer Commanding, Headquarters 10 Corps C/o 56 APO, respondent No.3. This complaint was decided by the authorities in October 1989. The petitioner along with Hav Bahal Singh, L/NK Surjit Singh and Sepoy Babu Singh were discharged from Army by this Order a direction was given that pensionary benefits be released to Ex-Hav Bahal Singh. The petitioner was held entitled to service gratuity on humanitarian ground. It was specifically mentioned in paragraph 5 of the complaint filed by the petitioner that they were in low medical category since June 1984. They were suffering from mental diseases since 1982 caused by Army Service conditions. The exact disease they were suffering from and the medical treatment they were to take in order to keep their affections under check were given in the medical papers, which were taken away from them by 184 MH Suratgarh and 15 Bihar. All the complainants were hospitalised in C.W.P. No. 11205 of 1990 Military Hospital, Western Command in the psychiatric Ward for re- categorisation in November / December 1985. The details of the diseases sufferred by them can be collected from 184 MH or 15 -3- Bihar, which is as under :- “a. Hav Bahal Singh i. ii. b. i. ii. c. i. ii. Epilepsy grand mal – Depression Not fit for mi service. Recommended low med category 'EEE'. L/NK Surjit Singh Neurosis, Med category 'BEE' permanent. Sepoy Babu Singh Neurosis. Med. Category 'BEE' permanent.” The petitioner alleges that vide Annexure R-1 dismissal order was converted into discharge. However, by considering the case of the petitioner for pension the respondents have denied the benefit to the petitioner, on the ground that he has service less than 15 years, which is mandatory qualifying service as per Pension Regulations for Army 1961 Part I. In paragraph 3 of the written statement, reference has been made to para 132 of the Pension Regulations for Army 1961, which reads as under :- “132: Minimum qualifying service pension. “Unless otherwise provided for, the minimum qualifying colour service for earning a service pension is 15 years.” The petitioner has not completed 15 years of service, therefore, he is not entitled to pensionary benefits. Hav. Bahal Singh has been given pensionary benefits because he has completed 15 C.W.P. No. 11205 of 1990 years of service. -4- Mr. R.S. Bains, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently argued that on a joint complaint made by the petitioner and Hav Bahal Singh the punishment of dismissal from service has been converted into discharge. The contentions of the complaint have been taken to be true by the respondents. The complainants have specifically stated that they have suffering from mental disease, the authorities while allowing the pensionary benefit to Hav Bahal Singh should have considered that the petitioner is in low medical category and after assessing his medical disability he should have been held entitled to disability pension. In support of this contention he has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in the cases of Union of India and others Vs. Ex. Sepoy Ranjit Singh LPA No. 547 of 2001 decided on 11.2.2009 and Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and others Vs. Khushbash Singh, Ex. Naib Subedar, resident of Village Lotan, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala decided on

31.3.2010. In the present case, the petitioner has given details of their low medical category since June, 1984. In the complaint filed against the order of dismissal, it is mentioned that they were suffering from mental diseases since 1982 caused by Army service conditions. The medical papers are with 184MH Suratgarh and 15 Bihar. They were hospitalized in Military Hospital, Western Command in the psychiatric ward for categorization in November / December 1985. Details of their diseases have also been given. In the written C.W.P. No. 11205 of 1990 -5- statement there is no specific denial to the conents of the illness of petitioner. Applying the ratio of the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner it would be fair to give direction, considering the case of Surjit Singh, for grant of disability pension as per Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for Army 1961, in view of the law laid down by this Court in the cases Union of India and others Vs. Ex. Sepoy Ranjit Singh LPA No. 547 of 2001 decided on 11.2.2009 and Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and others Vs. Khushbash Singh, Ex. Naib Subedar, resident of Village Lotan, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala LPA No. 978 of 2009 decided on 31.3.2010. The writ petition is allowed with a direction that the respondents should consider the case of the petitioner under Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for Army 1961, for disability pension within a period of three months. In case he is held entitled for disability pension, the same shall be released within next 3 months with interest @ 6% per annum.

24.12.2010 'sp' (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE