Supreme Court of India
MADAN PRASAD SINHA @ SANATAN BABA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
- Decided
- 8 April 2019
- Judges listed
- D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, HEMANT GUPTA
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [2019] 5 S.C.R. 761 · 2019 INSC 472
- Not shown
- 1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
The only issue which arises for determination in the present appeal is with regard to the grant of disability pension to the appellant.
p. 762, margin B
The appellant was enrolled in the Corps of Signals of the Indian Army as a Radio Mechanic on 18 February 1971.
p. 762, margin B
On 18 August 1981, he was discharged from military service under Army Rule 13(3) on account of being placed in a low medical category.
p. 762, margin C
The case of the appellant is that he suffered from a Chronic Duodenal Ulcer as a result of his participation in Operation Cactus Lilly in 1971.
p. 762, margin C
The appellant moved the Armed Forces Tribunal for the grant of war injury pension. The Tribunal declined to accede to the plea for the grant of war injury pension on the ground that it was payable only in respect of participation in operations or in the active line of duty. In the present case, it was the view of the Tribunal that the nature of the disability was not attributable to any such participation in action. This view of the Tribunal is correct.
p. 762, margin D
On 26 November 2018, the following order was passed by this Court: “Delay condoned. Application seeking leave to appeal is allowed. The submission which has been urged on behalf of the petitioner is that his claim for the grant of disability pension for the period between 1996 and 2014 has not been considered since it was in 2014 that he was granted the disability pension for the period thereafter. Issue notice confined to this question returnable within four weeks. Liberty to serve the additional copy on the Central Agency. Application for exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned judgment is allowed.”
pp. 762–763, margin E
Notice was confined to the issue as to whether the appellant should be granted disability pension between 1996 and 2014.
p. 763, margin A
In the counter affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the respondents, a chart has been submitted, making a reference to the Re- Survey Medical Boards which had assessed the extent of disability so as to facilitate a decision on the claim for the grant of disability pension.
p. 763, margin B
The chart indicates that initially the extent of disability was determined at 40% for two years with effect from 14 July 1985. Subsequently, the disability was assessed at 20% for two years with effect from 17 July 1987; at 30% for five years with effect from 17 July 1990; and at 20% for ten years with effect from 23 March 1994. However, it appears that the PCDA(P), Allahabad re-assessed the disability at less than 20% on 8 May 1995. As a result of this, the appellant did not receive disability pension with effect from 24 March 1995.
p. 763, margin B
With effect from 30 January 2014, the disability of the appellant was assessed at 20% on a permanent basis for life by the Military Hospital, Danapur Cantt. The above narration of facts would indicate that the position as it stands pursuant to the assessment done by the Military Hospital with effect from 30 January 2014 is that the appellant suffers from 20% disability which is assessed for life. He has received disability pension thereafter.
p. 763, margin D
In this background, we are of the view that the denial of disability pension to the appellant for the period between 24 March 1995 and 30 January 2014 was misconceived. The disability element has already been rounded off in pursuance of the previous order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal.
p. 763, margin E
We accordingly, allow the appeal and direct that the appellant shall be granted arrears on account of disability pension in accordance with the applicable rates prevalent at the relevant time between 24 March 1995 and 30 January 2014.
p. 763, margin F
The computation shall be carried out and arrears shall be paid over to the appellant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.
pp. 763–764, margin G
The civil appeal is accordingly, allowed. No costs.
p. 764, margin A
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
p. 764, margin A