Punjab & Haryana HC upholds grant of ‘disability pension’ to hearing-impaired officer

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) to grant ‘disability pension’ to an army officer who suffered hearing loss during his service which was assessed by the medical board to be less than 20% for life. and was also declared to be aggravated by rendering military service.

In doing so, the court said that the benefits of the Supreme Court’s verdict in Sukhvinder Singh Vs. Union of India and others (2014) will be applicable to the officer, where the apex court held that wherever a member of the armed forces is disabled from service on account of disability, it must be perforce presumed that his disability was held to be more than twenty percent.

A division bank of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharmsaid, “Although the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled Sukhwinder Singh Vs. UOI and others (above) was voted on 25.06.2014. However, prima facie, though the benefits thereof cannot be denied to the present defendant merely on the ground that it has only prospective effect and no retroactive effect…it appears that the admission of the request (above), resulted from the Army Authorities, repeatedly escaping in an unbearable way from the onerous statutory obligation that falls to them, to grant the present respondent the disability pension, which otherwise under the aspect of upholding the right , he became entitled to become so endowed“.

These observations were made during the hearing of the plea filed by the Union Government challenging the decision of the AFT to grant disability pension to the soldier to the officer in light of Sukhwinder Singh case.

The respondent Jarnail Singh was inducted into the Indian Army on 31 March 1988 in good health and was discharged from service on 30 November 2007 before the completion of his terms of engagement at his request on highly compassionate grounds.

During his service he suffered a disability of “Sensori Neural Hearing Loss B/L-H90” which was assessed by the Release Medical Board as less than 20% for life and was also declared a be aggravated by surrendering to military service. .

Singh’s claim for disability element was rejected by the competent authority on the ground that the disability was assessed to be less than 20%. He then filed a first appeal on 7 July 2008, which was dismissed by the Department on 11 December 2008.

After six years, the respondent officer filed an application in the Armed Forces Tribunal.

On March 7, 2019, the Court issued its ruling, citing Sukhwinder Singh v. Union of Indiawhich stated that disabilities rated below 20% could be rounded up to 50% for pension eligibility. Aggrieved by this order, the Union moved the High Court.

Before the high court, the Union Government argued that Regulation 173 of the Army Pension Rules, 1961, applies only to persons disabled from service on account of disability, not to those discharged on compassionate grounds. He argued that the AFT’s basis on Sukhwinder Singh was wrong as the verdict was applicable in cases where the soldier was invalided from service but was not applicable where the soldier was released from service on compassionate grounds/domestic difficulties.

After reviewing the submissions, the Court rejected the Union’s argument and stated that the respondent’s disability was aggravated by his military service, making him eligible for a disability pension even without being disabled.

It observed that denial of benefits would lead to injustice, especially as no adverse observations were made during the service of the respondent.

The Court also clarified that though the decision in Sukhwinder Singh Vs. UOI and others was enacted in 2014, though its benefits cannot be denied to the officer merely on the ground that it has only prospective effect and no retrospective effect.

“Accordingly, the beneficial effect of the said declaration of law, although it is also prima facie, to be bestowed on the soldiers, regardless of the date of the pronouncement of the said judgment. If the said endowment will not be made, as a result, prima facie, in the opinion of this Court, an arbitrary limit date would be committed between those soldiers who were dismissed prior to the pronouncement of the sentence…, therefore with those soldiers who were released after sentencing…“, he opined.

Upholding and confirming the order of the Tribunal, the high court said: “Consequently, the Court is forced, after rejecting the summons, to uphold the verdict rendered by the Court in question, by which the arrears of the disability pension were limited to the plaintiff on 25.06.2014.“.

Title: UNION OF INDIA AND SOR. v. EX HAV JARNAIL SINGH AND ANR.

Mr. Dharm Chand Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioners/UOI.

Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, lawyer for respondent no. 1.

Click here to read/download the order