Virendra Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Hindustan petroleum Corporation Limited, through Regional Manager, Jeevan Nidhi-2, First Floor, LIC Investment Building (Phase-2), Ambedkar Circle, Bhawan Singh Road, Jaipur-302005

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Punit Singhvi with Ms. Shradha Mehta and Mr. Ayush Singh
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Devesh Kumar Bansal (for respondents No.1 to 3) Mr. Sundram Sharma for
		Ms. Sukriti Kasliwal
		(for respondent No.4)

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order

¶13

21/01/2026

¶14

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-

¶15

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to allow this writ petition and;

¶16

i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction this Hon'ble court may be pleased to call for record pertaining to the present case;

¶17

i-A) by an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondent no 4 may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of the LPG dealership for Khandar, District- Sawai Madhopur.

¶18

ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to issue amended disability certificate to the effect that the disability of the petitioner was attributable to the military services and not aggravated during the military services and set aside the letter dated 3.7.2014.

¶19

iii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. iv) Cost of the litigation may kindly be granted to the petitioner.”

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Punit Singhvi, submits that the petitioner is an ex-army man and has rendered service for more than 16 years before he was discharged on 31.01.2001 on account of disability caused during the military service.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner applied for LPG distributorship in terms of an advertisement issued on 20.09.2013 by respondent No.4 – Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) under the defence quota. Learned counsel submits that on being asked by the petitioner, the respondent No.2 – O.I.C. Record, issued a disability certificate in his favour on 27.01.2014, wherein it was certified that his disability is accepted as ‘aggravated by military services’. Though, the said disability certificate was submitted by the petitioner, his application for grant of dealership came to be rejected by HPCL vide communication dated 03.09.2014 on the ground that the disability certificate is not an appropriate certificate and has not been issued by the competent authority as required under the guidelines and further, that the same was also not annexed alongwith the application.

¶22

Learned counsel further submits that another reason for rejection of the petitioner’s application was that while the Guidelines for Allotment of Oil Product Agencies requires that the disability should be ‘attributable to military services’, the disability certificate submitted by the petitioner mentions that the disability of the petitioner was ‘aggravated by military services’ and thus, the said disability certificate was not found to be appropriate.

¶23

Learned counsel submits that the distinction drawn by the respondents between a disability ‘aggravated by military services’ and a disability ‘attributable to military services’ no more exists in view of the order passed by Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No.180/2013 titled as Ex Hav Umesh Prasad Vs. Union of India & Ors. dated 23.03.2015. Thus, learned counsel submits that the application of the petitioner could not have been rejected by HPCL and he should have been considered for grant of LPG dealership.

¶24

In view, of the above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the writ petition be allowed.

¶25

E-converso, Mr. Devesh Kumar Bansal, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 submits that the disability certificate dated 27.01.2014 has been rightly issued as the disability of the petitioner was ‘aggravated by military services’ and no other disability certificate, much less a certificate recording the disability as ‘attributable to military services’, could have been issued.

¶26

Learned counsel further submits that the disability certificate dated 27.01.2024 was issued prior to the order dated 23.03.2015 passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal and even otherwise, the disability suffered by the petitioner would continue to be a disability on

¶27

account of it being ‘aggravated by military services’ and the certificate as such cannot be replaced by a disability on account of disability ‘attributable to military services’.

¶28

Learned counsel also submits that the disability certificate dated 27.01.2014 was issued by the Assistant Record Officer for OIC EME Records, who is a competent officer to whom requisite powers have been delegated by the Office of Director General of Settlement (SE) and for all purposes, the said disability certificate issued to the petitioner should be considered as a disability certificate issued by the Director General of Settlement (SE). However, even the said fact would not entitle the petitioner to relief, as the disability certificate was admittedly issued after the prescribed last date for submission of the application which was 22.10.2013, as also recorded in petitioner’s rejection order dated 03.09.2014.

¶29

Mr. Sundram Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 – HPCL, submits that the application of the petitioner seeking LPG dealership has been rightly rejected for various reasons, which has been duly mentioned in the communication dated 03.09.2014. Learned counsel submits that from the bare perusal of the communication dated 03.09.2014, it is evident that; (i) disability certificate was not submitted by the petitioner along with his application; (ii) the disability certificate subsequently submitted by the petitioner was issued to him only on 27.01.2014, whereas the last date for submission of application was 22.10.2013 and thus, any document procured by the petitioner after the last date of submission of application would render no assistance to the petitioner and cannot be considered; (iii) the said disability certificate has not been issued to the petitioner by a competent authority as required in the Guidelines for Allotment of Oil

¶30

Product Agencies; and (iv) the eligibility criteria mentioned in clause 4(d) of the guidelines provides that the disability of an application should be ‘attributable to military services’, whereas the disability certificate submitted by the petitioner states that the disability was ‘aggravated by military services’ and thus, the said certificate is not a valid certificate, so as to consider the candidature of the petitioner for grant of LPG dealership.

¶31

Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Ors. Vs. Swapnil Singh , Civil Appeal Nos. 6928-6929 of 2015 decided on 08.09.2015, wherein it has been held that the applicant should possess the requisite qualification on the last date of submission of the application.

¶32

Learned counsel, thus, submits that for all the aforementioned reasons, the rejection was very much justified and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. The rejection of application of the petitioner vide order dated 03.09.2014 reveals that the said rejection was on different counts namely;

¶34

i. the disability certificate was not annexed with the application; ii. the last date of submitting the application was 22.10.2013 whereas, the disability certificate itself was issued to the petitioner only on 27.01.2014; and

¶35

iii. the said disability certificate was not valid and proper as neither it was issued by the competent authority as required under the Guidelines for Allotment of Oil Product Agencies, nor it

¶36

was meeting the eligibility criteria mentioned in the Guidelines for Allotment of Oil Product Agencies.

¶37

There is no dispute to the fact that the disability certificate was issued by respondents No.1 to 3 in favour of the petitioner only on 27.01.2014, whereas the last date of filing of the application was 22.10.2013, thus, it could not be disputed that the disability certificate was not annexed by the petitioner along with his application. In absence of disability certificate being annexed along with the application, the respondent No.4 were very much justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner on this count.

¶38

As far as the finding recorded in the order dated 03.09.2014 with respect to the fact that the said disability certificate dated 27.01.2014 was not issued by the competent authority, it is relevant to note that once the respondents No.1 to 3, who has issued the said disability certificate to the petitioner confirms that the said disability certificate dated 27.01.2014 was issued by the authority to whom the powers have been duly delegated by the Office of Director General of Settlement, it is not justified to hold that the said disability certificate was not issued by the competent authority. Thus, the said disability certificate issued by the authority under powers delegated to it by Director General of Settlement was duly issued by the competent authority.

¶39

With respect to non-consideration of the said disability certificate on the ground that it mentions the disability of the petitioner as ‘aggravated by military services’ and not ‘attributable to military services’, it is relevant to note that once, vide order dated 23.03.2015, the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Ex Hav Umesh Prasad (supra) has held that there is no distinction between

¶40

a disability certificate issued with respect to disability ‘aggravated by military services’ and ‘attributable to military services’, so far as it is required for evaluation of the application of an ex-army man for grant of dealership, no distinction can be drawn and HPCL erred in holding the disability certificate to be invalid on this count.

¶41

It is also relevant to note that learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 has also not disputed the said contention of the petitioner that no rejection of an applicant, who is an ex-serviceman can be done on the ground that the disability certificate refers to the term ‘aggravated by military services’ and not ‘attributable to military services’. However, he submits that the same would not improve the case of the petitioner in the present case, as the order was passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal only on 23.03.2015, whereas the application of the petitioner was rejected on 03.09.2014 itself. Be that as it may, it is held that no distinction can be drawn in a disability which is either ‘aggravated by military services’ or ‘attributable to military services’ for the purposes of consideration of an application of an ex-serviceman for grant of dealership.

¶42

It is also a matter of record that this Court vide its order dated 05.12.2022 required respondent No.4 – HPCL to file a requisite affidavit as to whether the location for which the petitioner had applied for LPG dealership was still vacant or not, after which a specific affidavit has been filed, wherein it has been stated that the said location for awarding LPG dealership stands closed and at present, there is no vacancy for awarding the LPG dealership in the said location at Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur, under GP Category.

¶43

However, as per their affidavit, it is also not the case of the respondent No.4 that the dealership for the said location has been allotted to any other person.

¶44

Thus, taking all the overall facts into consideration, more particularly the fact that the disability certificate was not annexed by the petitioner along with his application seeking LPG dealership, the last date of submission of which was 22.10.2013 and the same was issued to the petitioner only on 27.01.2014, which is after the last date of submission of the application and also the fact that the location for awarding LPG dealership stands closed by respondent No.4, the relief as prayed in the writ petition to the extent of directing the respondent No.4 – HPCL to award LPG dealership to the petitioner for the location – Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur, in consequence to the advertisement dated 20.09.2013, cannot be granted.

¶45

However, undisputedly, as the petitioner is an ex-army man who suffers from a disability for which even a disability certificate has been issued by respondents No.1 to 3 and also the fact that no LPG dealership for the location in issue was granted to any other person, the respondent No.4 – HPCL, may consider his case sympathetically for grant of LPG dealership in accordance with its applicable guidelines. 18. It is further observed that in view of the order passed by Armed Forces Tribunal dated 23.03.2015 in the case of Ex Hav Umesh Prasad (supra) and considering the specific stand of respondents No.1 to 3, no distinction can be drawn by the Oil Product Agencies while considering the application for grant of dealership to an exserviceman solely on account of the disability certificate mentioning the term ‘aggravated by military services’ and not ‘attributable to military services’ and mentioning of either of these words i.e.,

¶46

‘aggravated’ or ‘attributable’ would have same effect for the purpose of eligibility of a disabled armed forces personnel.

¶47

With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶48

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶49

(ANUROOP SINGHI),J

¶50

JAYANT KUMAR /67

Virendra Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Birdhi Chand Choudhary Son of Shri Chhitar Mal Vs Union of India

Chitranshi Yadav D/O Mr. L.R. Yadav Vs National Institute of Ayurveda

Smt. Mohini Singh W/O Shri Raghuraj Singh Vs Nagar Nigam, Bharatpur

Aayushi Kedawat and Anr. Vs State Medical and Health Dep

Jagannath Vs State Bank of India

Atul Agarwal, Son of Late Shri Ramvilas Goyal Vs Anjuman Husamiyan Islamiyan Committee (Raj)