RAM JEE SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 1.3.2002 passed in CWJC No. 14544 of 2001 [2002(2) PLJR 255] by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ application filed by the appellant for grant of disability pension under Regulation 173 of the Army Pension Regulation 1961 (Part I).

(2.) ADMITTED fact is that the appellant was enrolled in the Army on 16th August, 1963. He passed the basic military training on 26th January, 1964 but he failed to pass the Technical Trade Test Class III as he was found suffering from the disease known as "Inquinal Adenitis (698)". The order of discharge was passed in 1964 and made effective from 11th September, 1964. Thereafter he was granted invalid gratuity of Rs. 50/ -. For 35 years he did not make any grievance theft he was entitled to disability pension under the aforesaid regulation. He filed the writ application being CWJC No. 14544 of 2001 (sic) in the year 1999 and that writ application was taken up for disposal along with other writ application filed by the ex -employees of the State of Bihar and the learned Single Judge disposed of all the matters by order dated 29.2.2000 and treating the writ application directed against the State of Bihar ordered that the case of the appellant should also be considered in the light of the directions issued by this Court in the case of Most. Rukmini Devi V/s. The State of Bihar & others, reported in 1996(2) PLJR 348, Thereafter the appellant filed a representation before the authorities who rejected the same by reasoned order on 17th July, 2000 which has been annexed as Annexure -6 to the memo of appeal. The authorities have found that the disability is neither attributable nor aggravated by military service and thus Regulation 173 of the Regulations was not attracted.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the delay cannot be a ground to reject the application of the appellant in case of retiral benefits. Whether a claim is to be rejected on the ground of delay or not depends upon the facts of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down. The present case is such a case where in our view the learned Single Judge has rightly taken the view that the delay is sufficient to reject the claim. After 35 years, a claim cannot be agitated. This apart on merit also it appears that the appellant was not in active, service which is a condition precedent for grant of disability pension under the aforesaid rule as he could not pass the Technical Trade Test Class III which is a condition precedent for engagement in active service of the Army.