LAWS(ALL)-1997-9-172

DAYA SHANKAR TEWARI Vs. CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF

Decided On September 01, 1997
DAYA SHANKAR TEWARI Appellant
V/S
CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special Appeal No. 132 of 1997, as initially filed, was directed against the judgment and order dated November 27, 1996, disposing of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13885 of 1995 studded with certain observations and the order dated February 5, 1997, dismissing Civil Misc. Review Application No. 655 of 1996 seeking review of the Judgment dated November 27, 1996. When Special Appeal No. 132 of 1997 came up before the Court on March 18, 1997, it was felt that these two orders could not he lumped together for being challenged in one single appeal and hence, to clear the road-block about the maintainability of a single appeal against two orders, the petitioner prayed for and was granted time to file separate appeal impugning the judgment/order dated November 27, 1997 attended with an application for condonation of delay. The appellant, thereafter, filed Special Appeal No. 154 of 1997 against the judgment dated November 27, 1996. Both these appeals as they were intertwined, were admitted for hearing vide Court's order dated April 17, 1997 and heard finally on August 1, 1997.

(2.) Facts that emerge from the materials on record of the writ petition and events leading the appellant to land up in this Court are that the appellant joined the Army Service as a Sepoy on August 28, 1977 and while posted at Panagarh, he chanced to meet with an accident as a result of the Motor Cycle going into a skid in which the petitioner "sustained severe injury" while he was "on bonafide Government duty". The injury was attributed to "Military Service in peace". The petitioner was placed in Medical Category 'B' (Permanent) w.e.f. November 12, 1982 as a case of fracture mid-shaft femur (Lt). "The disability was estimated less than 20%. Upon his submitting a willingness certificate to continue in service and on the recommendation by the O.C. Unit that the individual could be suitably employed in his own trade, the appellant was retained in service in the same trade but harnessed to an alternative job in the public interest, owing to his disability. It appears that the appellant had staked his claim for being remustered or retained as J.C.O. (Religious teacher) called 'Pandit' but the same was concededly rejected vide order dated November 22, 1992 which reads as under ;

(3.) The said writ petition came to be heard and disposed of vide judgment and order dated January 28, 1992. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as below :