Allowed

Raghunath v. Union of India & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Dec 2014CWP/19615/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed the Writ Petitioner's claim in part, setting aside the Armed Forces Tribunal order that dismissed a disability pension claim on limitation grounds. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication on merits, following precedents where similar Tribunal orders were set aside for ignoring earlier judgments.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's claim allowed in part; impugned order set aside; matter remitted to Tribunal for fresh adjudication on merits.

Raghunath Vs Union of India & Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

CWP No.19615 of 2014 (O&M)

¶4

Date of Decision: 16.12.2014

¶5

¶6

No.6802415 Ex.L/NK Raghunath ... Petitioner

¶7

VS.

¶8

UOI & Ors. ... Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

¶11

¶12

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

Present: Mr. Hari Niwas Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner

¶17

Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate for UOI

¶18

¶19

SURYA KANT, J. (Oral)

¶20

(1) The petitioner raised the claim for disability pension before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (in short, ‘the Tribunal’) in OA No.708/2010 which has been dismissed vide order dated 03.03.2014 essentially on the ground that it was barred by limitation and suffered from laches.

¶21

(2) It is not in dispute that this Court in (i) CWP No.2837 of 2014 (JC-225713 A Ex-NB Sub Dharam Pal vs. Union of India and others) decided on 02.05.2014; and (ii) Ex.Naik Umed Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.) decided on 14.05.2014 (Annexures P4 & P5) respectively, has intervened and set aside such like orders passed by the Tribunal where pension claims were turned down on the ground of limitation. It may be true, as pointed out by learned

¶22

V.VISHAL 2014.12.22 11:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶23

��

¶24

�� ��

¶25

counsel for the respondents, that there is a passing reference to the factum of non-availability of old service record of the petitioner, nevertheless, the Tribunal has declined to interfere in the matter and dismissed the petition being barred by limitation.

¶26

(3) For the reasons assigned by this Court in Ex.NB Sub Dharampal and Ex.Naik Umed Singh cases (Annexure P4 & P5) respectively, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal cannot sustain. The writ petition is allowed in part and while setting aside the order dated 03.03.2014 (Annexure P3), the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication of the petitioner’s claim on merits. The respondents may raise all the pleas before the Tribunal which shall also be gone into as per the law.

¶27

(4) Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on

27.01.2015.

�� 

��

��

�� 

V.VISHAL 2014.12.22 11:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Raghunath v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghunath v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bal Krishan Vs Union of India and Others

Ishwar Dutt Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Ranjit Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Kishana and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Des Raj Vs Union of India and Ors.

Vijender Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.