Dismissed

Union of India v. No. 3181525Y Ex. Hav Bhanwar Lal Rinwa

Rajasthan HC22 Jul 2024CW/6072/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan (Jodhpur) disposed of a writ petition challenging an Armed Forces Tribunal order granting disability rounding-off benefits. The Court held that beneficial provisions should be interpreted liberally and applied from the date the claim was decided, not the date of discharge, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6072/2024 dismissed; Armed Forces Tribunal Order upheld.

Union of India Vs No. 3181525Y Ex. Hav… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:31598-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6072/2024

¶4

Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Defence, South Block, Government Of India, New Delhi - 110 011.

¶5

Chief Of The Army Staff, Ihq Of Ministry Of Defence (Army), Dhq Po, New Delhi- 110011.

¶6

Principal Controller Of Defence Accounts (Pension), Draupati Ghat, Allahabad (Up) - 211 001.

¶7

Officer-In-Charge, Records, The Jat Regt. Pin-900946,c/o 56 Apo

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

No. 3181525Y Ex. Hav Bhanwar Lal Rinwa S/o Shri Moti Ram Rinwa, Resident Of V.p.o. Altawa, Tehsil Gachhipura, District Nagaur (Rajasthan).

¶11

----Respondent

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, Dy.S.G.

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR Order

¶14

22/07/2024

¶15

By the Court (Per, Hon’ble Shree Chandrashekhar, J):-

¶16

Through this writ petition, the Union of India and its officers

¶17

seek to challenge the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Jaipur rendered on 13^th April 2018.

¶18

In O.A. No.47 of 2017, Ex. Hav Bhanwar Lal Rinwa made a prayer for grant of rounding off benefit of 20% to 50% with effect from 1^st December 2011 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The Tribunal by a common judgment rendered in O.A. No.75 of 2016, 45 of 2017, 47 of 2017, 49 of 2017 and 14 of 2018 held that the applicants/retirees were entitled for rounding off benefit with incidental and consequential benefits; the applicants in O.A. No.45 of 2017, 47 of 2017 and 14 of 2018 were granted the rounding of benefits to the extent of 50%.

¶19

[2024:RJ-JD:31598-DB]

¶20

[CW-6072/2024]

¶21

(2 of 6)

¶22

For arriving at that conclusion, the Tribunal adverted to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9946 of 2016 titled “ Davinder Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors .”; O.A. No.1439 of 2016 titled “ Ex. Sgt. Girish Kumar Vs. Union of India and Ors .” and the Office Memorandum dated 23^rd January 2018 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence.

¶23

Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, the learned counsel for the appellants referred to a decision in “ Shiv Dass vs. Union of India and Ors.” AIR 2007 Supreme Court 1330 to challenge the direction of the Tribunal on the ground that the monetary benefits could not have been granted to the respondent no.1 for a period exceeding three years prior to the date of filing of the Original Application. However, a mere glance at the decision in “Shiv Dass” would indicate that the grievance raised by the retiree was to confining the benefit only for the last three years preceding the judgments by the Tribunal and this decision of the Tribunal was not approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The learned counsel for the appellants also referred to a decision in “Union of India and Ors. Vs. Tarsem Singh” (Civil Appeal No.5151-5152 of 2008) but this decision is also not relevant for the present purpose. In “ Tarsem Singh ”, there was a delay of 16 years in approaching the Court but the High Court issued a direction for payment of arrears for the last 16 years with interest.

¶24

Before the Tribunal, no dispute was raised as to the respondent no.1 suffering disability to a certain percentage and being discharged from service on that count. However, what is contended before us is that prior to the Office Memorandum dated

¶25

[2024:RJ-JD:31598-DB]

¶26

[CW-6072/2024]

¶27

(3 of 6)

¶28

23^rd January 2018 coming into force the benefits thereunder could not have been granted by the Tribunal to the respondent no.1 who was claiming such benefits with effect from 1^st December 2011.

¶29

In the letter issued by the Ministry of Defence dated 15^th September 2014 the disability element was revised and I.D. upto 20% was rounded off to 50% with effect from 01^st January 1996 and I.D. upto 30% was also rounded off to 50% for different periods. This is not in dispute that in cases where accepted percentage of disability was 20% or more but less than 50% the percentage to be reckoned for computation of disability element under the Office Memorandum dated 23^rd January 2018 was made 50%; and that is what was claimed by the respondent no.1. 7. Under the para No.7.2 of the letter dated 31^st January 2001, the benefit of broad banding of percentage of disability/war injury to the Armed Forces Officers and personnel below officer rank who were invalidated out of service on or after 1^st January 1996 was extended. Later on, on receiving representations from various Pensioners’ Associations, a decision was taken that all affected pensioners who were invalidated out of service prior to 1^st January 1996 and were receiving disability element/ war injury element on 1^st January 1996 or thereafter shall submit an application in the prescribed format and they shall be provided the benefits provided they were reassessed of disability to the extent of more than 20%. Thereafter, the revision of pension in view of the recommendations of 7^th C.P.C. was notified through letter dated 29^th October 2016. Under the recommendations of 7^th C.P.C., the existing rate of disablity element as on 31^st December 2015 was to

¶30

(4 of 6)

¶31

[2024:RJ-JD:31598-DB]

¶32

[CW-6072/2024]

¶33

be multiplied by factor of 2.57 for arriving at the revised rate of disability element as on 1^st January 2016. This scheme was also modified and on 4^th September 2017 a modified scheme was published whereunder the extent of disability of the pensioners is to be recomputed as per the table provided thereunder. The Office Memorandum dated 23^rd January 2018 provided

¶34

clarification/modification as under:

¶35

“The undersigned is directed to refer to this Ministry's letter No. 17(01)/2016-D(Pen/Pol) dated 29th October 2016 modified vide letter No 17(01)/2017(01)/ D(Pension/Policy) dated 4th September, 2017 for revision of pension of pre-2016 Defence Forces pensioners/ family pensioners in implementation of the Government decisions on the recommendations of the 7th CPC. As per the same, disability element/ liberalized disability element/ war injury element of Defence Forces pensioners have been revised by the pension disbursing agencies by multiplying the existing rate of disability element as on 31.12.2015, by factor of 2.57 to arrive at revised rate of disability element as on 1.1.2016.The Ministry vide letter No. 17(01)/2017(02)/D(Pension/Policy) dated 5^th September, 2017 have also issued orders for revision of pension including disability element by issue of corrigendum PPO based on notional pay fixed as on 1.1.2016 in the 7th CPC pay matrix corresponding to the pay in the pay scale/ pay band & grade pay in which the pensioner had retired. The later order of 5th September, 2017 allows the benefit of broad banding of disability in cases of retirement/ discharge voluntary or otherwise with disability/war injury and additional pension on disability/war injury element to be authorized by issue of corrigendum PPO.

¶36

2. In partial modification of Ministry's said order dated 29th October, 2016 as modified, the President is now pleased to decide that in cases where Armed Forces pensioners who were retired/discharged voluntary or otherwise with disability and were in receipt of disability/war injury element as on 31.12.2015, their extent of disability shall be re-computed in the following manner before applying the multiplication factor of 2.57 existing disability/war injury element to arrive at the revised disability element/ war injury element as on 1.1.2016.

¶37

*Accepted* *percentage of* *disability*	*Percentage to be* *reckoned for* *computation of* *Disability Element*
20% or more but less than 50%	50%
Between 50% to 75%	75%
Between 76% to 100%	100%

¶38

(5 of 6)

¶39

[2024:RJ-JD:31598-DB]

¶40

[CW-6072/2024]

¶41

3. Rates for calculation of disability where composite assessment has been made due to existence of disability as well as war injury, shall be determined in terms of provision contained in Para 3(b) of Ministry's letter No. 16(02)/2015D(Pen/Pol) dated 8th August 2016. The amount of revised disability element finally arrived shall be rounded off to next higher rupee.

¶42

4 . The President is also pleased to decide that quantum of additional pension available to old age pensioners after attaining the age of 80 years and above, shall also be admissible on revised disability/ war injury element. The Note below Para 12 of this Ministry's above mentioned letter dated 29th October, 2016 stands deleted.

¶43

5. The provisions of this Ministry's above-mentioned letter dated 29th October 2016 as modified vide letter dated 4th September, 2017 and dated 5th September, 2017, which are not affected by the provisions of this letter, shall remain unchanged.

¶44

6. PCDA(Pensions) Allahabad shall issue necessary implementation instructions for implementation of provisions of these orders directly by the Pension disbursing agencies.

¶45

7 . The provisions of this letter shall take effect from 1.1.2016. 8. This issues with the concurrence of Finance Division of this Ministry vide their ID No. Part file (i) to 30(01)/2016/Fin/Pen dated 15.12.2017.

¶46

9. Hindi version will follow.”

¶47

This is not in the realm of any debate that the Courts must ensure that any person does not lose any benefit under a beneficial provision. Therefore, a beneficial provision should be given a purposive interpretation to further and not to frustrate the desired social purpose. In a catena of judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is the duty of the Court to interpret the provision liberally so as to give wider meaning rather than restrictive meaning which would negate the very object of the beneficial provision (refer, “Bharat Singh Vs. Management of New Delhi Tuberculosis centre” 1986 2 SCC 614; “Madan Singh Shekhawat Vs. Union of India and Ors.” 1996 6 SCC 459; “Morgina Begum Vs. MD, Hanuman Plantation Lmt.” 2007 11 SCC 616).

¶48

[CW-6072/2024]

¶49

[2024:RJ-JD:31598-DB]

¶50

(6 of 6)

¶51

Having regard to the intention behind the Office Memorandum dated 23^rd January 2018 to provide the benefit of rounding off to the employees who were discharged from service on account of disability suffered by them, we hold that applicability of this Office Memorandum should be decided with reference to the date on which the claim of the aggrieved party is finally decided. In “Shashikalabai (Smt) Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr.” 1998 5 SCC page 332, the Maharashtra Electricity Board had issued a circular on 05^th April 1979 providing compensation of Rs.30,000/- for the family/dependent of the victim who died by coming into contact with live electric wire. Later on, a circular dated 28^th January 1993 was issued by which the amount of compensation was enhanced to Rs.60,000/- with a condition that the cases already closed should not be reopened. In that case, the victim had died on 13^th March 1991 but the claim for compensation was decided after coming into operation of the circular dated 28^th January 1993. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the beneficiary should have been granted benefit under the new circular. The present case is similar on facts.

¶52

For the foregoing reasons, we are not inclined to interfere in this matter and, accordingly, D.B. Civil Writ petition 6072 of 2024 is dismissed.

¶53

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶54

(SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J

¶55

16- Arjun Daiya /-

Union of India v. No. 3181525Y Ex. Hav Bhanwar Lal Rinwa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. No. 3181525Y Ex. Hav Bhanwar Lal Rinwa

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

Lieutenant Hira Lal Parihar (Retd.) Vs State of Rajasthan

Sajjan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Dalam Chand Vs the State of Rajasthan

Pabu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Sandeep Jain Vs Rajasthan High Court

M/S K L Dosi Medicals Vs Union of India