BAPDHAN PHUKAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Baruah, learned Addl. C.G.S.C. for the respondents, Union of India.

(2.) In this writ petition, the petitioner, namely, Bapdhan Phukan, sought for a direction to the respondents to pay the disability pension to him since the day of his discharge and other consequential benefit thus setting aside the impugned discharge order by contending, inter-alia, that in terms of Regulation 173 of the Army Pension Regulation, 1961 the petitioner is entitled to disability pension. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner, supporting the case of the petitioner, contended that the petitioner joined the army initially but he was transferred to Pension Establishment from A.M.C. Services w.e.f. 1st August, 1985 and got a pension of Rs.165/- per month on fulfilling the condition of enrolment with reserve liability for two years and subsequently he was re-enrolled in Defence Security Corps on 23.5.1988 as he was medically found fit for service in Defence Security Corps. However, the petitioner suffered from certain ailments for which he was examined by the medical authority and the medical authority opined that the petitioner was suffering from sub- occipital craniecoey and tumoral decompression and the medical authority recorded 60% disability, as seen in the document marked Annexure-I to the writ petition. But the petitioner has been discharged from service without benefit of disability pension which, according to Mr. Biswas, learned counsel, the action of the respondent is violative of the Regulation 173 of the Army Pension Regulation 1961. It is also contended by Mr. Biswas, learned counsel that after the re-enrolment in the Army, the petitioner had rendered about five years of service and during his service the petitioner got certain ailments. In other words, he became disabled for which the medical authority of the Army, respondent recommended 60% disability and that being the position, the respondent authority ought to have afforded disability pension. Supporting his submission, Mr. Biswas has cited certain decisions namely a related decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court, rendered in Bodan Lal Yadav, Ex- Signalman Vs. Union of India, reported in 1992 (3) SLR 758 and also another decision of the same High Court rendered in Union of India and others Vs. Bodan Lal Yadav, reported in 1994 (1) SLR 390, also the decision dated 29.7.97 passed by this Court, in C.R. No. 1685 of 1996, in a case between Shri Ghanashyam Sharma Vs. Union of India and others, 1997 (3) GLT 508 and contended that if an army man is discharged from service on medical ground because of personal disorder or medical disability he or she shall be entitled to disability pension but the respondents authority lost sight of this established principles of laws while passing the impugned order of discharge of the petitioner from service. It is also argued by the learned counsel that the petitioner had discharged his duties and services for the Nation very sincerely, deligently and efficiently and he has been getting only pension of Rs. 167/- per month only, thus putting the petitioner under hardship and distress and an Ex-army man should not be treated in such a manner by the respondents authority.

(3.) At the hearing Mr. D. Baruah, learned Addl. senior Addl. C.G.S.C. for the Union of India and other respondents, contended that the petitioner had concealed all the material facts and his service condition at the time of filing of this writ petition, inasmuch as, the petitioner was discharged from service earlier. But the respondent authority made sympathetic approach to him and the petitioner has been allowed to serve again and on the basis of his request and approach to the respondent authority for his discharge from service on the ground of his personal difficulties and the family affairs, he was discharged from service. Supporting his submission, the learned Addl. C.G.S.C. has drawn my attention to the document, marked Annexure-A to the affidavit-in-opposition, which is the copy of the letter dated 13.7.92 submitted by the petitioner to the authority concerned for his discharge from service. It is also argued by Mr. Baruah, learned Addl. C.G.S.C. that the petitioner did not render his service sincerely, deligently and efficiently to the Nation, inasmuch as, he was awarded 14 days imprisonment in Military custody and also 10 days pay of fine by the authority concerned, which cannot be controverted by the petitioner.