Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SECRETARY, M/O DEFENCE & ORS. versus AJIT SINGH

Decided
6 May 2009
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 934 · 2009 INSC 741
Also cited as
  • (2009) 7 SCC 328 (3 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

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.

1

Challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment of the Learned Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The appellants had filed an appeal before the High Court challenging the judgment dated 27-07-1999 of the District Judge, Bhiwani by which the appeal filed by the Union of India against the Judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Charkhi Dadri was dismissed.

p. 935, margin E

2

Respondent who was enrolled in the Military service on 29-09-1985 had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is entitled to disability pension with effect from 31-03-1990. A According to him, during the course of his service, he has ~ sustained 20% disability on account of electric shock suffered by him while he was on casual leave. On account of this he was declared medically unfit and ultimately discharged on 31-03- 1990. According to the present respondent he was entitled to disability pension.

pp. 935–936, margin G

3

Stand of the present appellants was that he suffered an t.. electric shock while he was on casual leave and working in his house near the tube well. It was pointed out that in any event he had not completed 10 years of service and had been discharged after four years eleven months and two days of service. Therefore, there is no question of granting any disability pension. The Trial Court held that the respondent was entitled to disability pension. Same view was maintained in appeal by the District Judge, Bhiwani and the High Court.

p. 936

4

Placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in Union of/ndia & Others Vs. Keshar Singh (2007 (12) SCC 675] and Union of India & Others Vs. Surinder Singh Rathore [2008 (5) SCC 747, it is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants that the disability is not attributable to or aggravate by military service. In addition he had not completed the period of requisite service and L .erefore not entitled to disability pension. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the High Court's view does not suffer from any infirmity.

p. 936, margin C

5

Keeping in view what this court has stated in the case of Keshar Singh and Surinder Singh (supra), the judgment of the_High Court is clearly unsustainable and in the circumstances, we set aside the impugned Judgment of the High Court.

p. 936, margin F

6

However, on the facts and circumstances of the case payment, if any, already been made to the respondent by way ~of disability pension shall not be recovered.

p. 936, margin F

7

The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. R.P. Appeal allowed.

p. 936, margin F