Disposed

Virbhadra Shattu Chougule v. Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Jul 2016WP/3949/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim for a liberalised pension for disability caused by an attack by extremists. It held that the decision must be based solely on the Medical Board's findings.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider the petitioner for liberalised pension within three months based solely on Medical Board findings.

Virbhadra Shattu Chougule Vs Union of India… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

wp3949

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
 WRIT PETITION NO.3949 OF 2004

¶5

Virbhadra Shattu Chougule
vs.
Union of India & Ors.

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

Mr.R.S.Apte, Senior Advocate i/b Mr.M.S.Lagu for the
Petitioner

¶9

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 A.A.SAYED, JJ.

¶10

 DATE : JULY 27, 2016

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT: (A.S.OKA,J.)

¶12

1Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner was appointed on the post of
Superintendent (Buildings and Roads), Grade II. The
case of the petitioner is that while he was working
as GO 002361X, AE(Civil) on 2nd August 1996, he was
attacked by extremists in Tripura. He sustained
injuries. The petitioner is relying upon the
medical certificate issued by the Medical
Superintendent of Civil Hospital, Aizwal dated 9th
September 1998 in which the opinion of the Medical
Board was recorded that the percentage of disability
suffered by the petitioner will be 70% for the field
work. The petitioner is also relying upon the
disability certificate dated 19th August 2003 issued
by the Medical Board which records that the
percentage of disability of the petitioner will be
70%.

¶13

¶14

wp3949

¶15

2The petitioner has made various grievances in
the petition including a grievance regarding his
posting. The petitioner made a representation dated
29thSeptember 2003 to the Head Quarters,
Directorate General of Border Roads Organization
pointing out that on 2nd August 1996, he sustained
gun shot wound in the abdomen while he was on duty.
He has stated that his disability has been assessed
at 70% and due to disability, he was not in a
position to serve in the organization. The
petitioner requested the Director General to grant
liberalised pension to him so that he could proceed
to take voluntary retirement with effect from 31st
December 2003. There is one more representation to
that effect made by the petitioner on 8th April 2004.
There is an affidavit in reply filed by Shri D.
Palit, Commandant working in the office of GREF
Centre in which a stand has been taken that the
disability suffered by the petitioner was only to
the extent of 30%. There is a rejoinder filed by
the petitioner on 15th January 2005. In the said
rejoinder, he has stated that his application for
grant of voluntary retirement has been sanctioned.
He has made a grievance that he has been sanctioned
normal pension, but liberalised pension is not
sanctioned.

¶16

3The learned senior counsel for the petitioner
stated that in November 2004, the petitioner has
been granted voluntary retirement and therefore, the
only issue which survives for consideration is

¶17

3 wp3949

¶18

whether the petitioner is entitled to a liberalised
pension. He relies upon consolidated orders on
pensionery awards in case of death/disability as a
result of (i) attack by or during action against
extremists, anti-social elements etc., and (ii)
Enemy action in international war or border
skirmishes. He submitted that the case of the
petitioner will be covered by category `E”. Relying
upon sub clause (ii) of clause 2 of Rule 6, he urged
that the respondents cannot rely upon the disability
certificate issued by the Medical Officer in as much
as the findings of the Medical Board are to be
treated as final and binding unless the employee
himself seeks review thereof. He submitted that the
case of the petitioner ought to have been considered
for grant of liberalised pension on the footing that
the petitioner falls in the category (E) under Rule
6 and that he suffers from 70% disability. He also
invited our attention to the order dated 13th
September 2004. He submitted that no decision has
been taken on the representations made by the
petitioner as regards grant of liberalised pension.

¶19

4None appears for the respondent. We have
perused the affidavit in reply filed by Shri
D.Palit. There is nothing placed on record to show
that the case of the petitioner was considered in
accordance with law for grant of liberalised pension
on account of disability suffered by him. There is
a merit in the contention of the petitioner that the
eligibility of the petitioner for grant of
liberalised pension will have to be determined on

¶20

4 wp3949

¶21

the basis of the percentage of the disability
determined by the Medical Board and not by any other
Doctor or any other Authority.

¶22

5The petitioner in his rejoinder has stated that
he has been granted normal pension but the
liberalised pension has not been granted.

¶23

6In the circumstances, appropriate Authority of
the respondents will have to consider the case of
the petitioner for grant of liberalised pension.

¶24

7Hence, we dispose of the writ petition by
passing the following order:

¶25

(I)We direct the respondents to consider the
case of the petitioner for grant of liberalised
pension within a period of three months from
the date of which an authenticated copy of this
Judgment and order is produced in the office of
the respondents;

¶26

(II)We make it clear that the claim for
liberalised pension will have to be considered
by the concerned Competent Authority only on
the basis of the findings recorded by the
Medical Board on the extent of disability
suffered by the petitioner;

¶27

(III)It will be open for the petitioner to
produce an authenticated copy of this Judgment
and order in the office of the respondents
along with a detailed representation enclosing
therewith copies of the certificates issued by

¶28

wp3949

¶29

¶30

the Medical Board;

¶31

(IV) The decision taken shall be communicated to the petitioner by the concerned Authority within a period of four months from the date on which an authenticated copy of this Judgment and Order is produced by the petitioner in the office of the concerned respondents;

¶32

(V) In the event, the decision is adverse to the petitioner, needless to add that the petitioner will be entitled to challenge the same in accordance with law;

¶33

(VI) Rule is partly made absolute with no order as to costs;

¶34

(VII) Parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this Judgment and order.

¶35

(A.A.SAYED,J.)

Virbhadra Shattu Chougule v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virbhadra Shattu Chougule v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Altamount Road Area Citizens Committee and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rabindra Nigam and Anr. Vs Banoo Nusserwanji Cama and 7 Ors.

Purshottam Vishandas Raheja Vs Ahsh Shrichand Raheja and Anr.

Hameed Jaffar Ahmed Ibrahim Mandeel Vs Farhat Mehdi Mandil and 10 Ors.

Atul Vora Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Shyamsundar Satyanarayan Agarwal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.