RAMJEE SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE admitted position is that the petitioner was enrolled in the Army on 16th August, 1963. He completed basic Military training on 26th January, 1964 and then while undergoing professional training of the trade the petitioner proceeded on leave for thirty six days with effect from 30th January 1964 to 5th of March, 1964. On rejoining from leave he was admitted at Military Hospital Bangalore on 29th May, 1964 for the disease (Inquinal Adenitis 698) and after examination by the Medical Board he was found to be disabled on that disease and was discharged on 11th September, 1964. The petitioner prayed for disability pension but he was not granted so and he was granted only invalidity gratuity of Rs. 50/ -. Such order was passed long back in the year 1965. Petitioner slept over the matter and only in the year 1999 after more than three decades moved in CWJC No. 1784 of 2000. The said writ petition alongwith other writ petitions were disposed of at the admission stage itself without giving notice to the Union of India to file representation before the authorities as per the general direction made in Rukmini Devi 'scase [1996 (2) PLJR 348]. Being enthusiastic of getting such an order the petitioner filed representation before the authorities but the same has been rejected by Annexure -1 by a speaking order wherein it has been held that the Petitioner did not become a fulfledged soldier as he failed to pass the technical trade test Class -C before his discharge and, as such, the question of granting of disability pension as per Regulation 173 of the Army Pension Regulation 1961 does not arise in his case. For challenging that Annexure -1 the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed challenging the whole contentions of the petitioner. The first point raised is that this High Court got no jurisdiction as the petitioner was discharged from Bangalore. Second point raised is that the writ petition as a whole barred not only by limitation but by the laches and acquiescence. Third contention is that the question of applicability of Rule 173 does not arise when the petitioner had never been made a fulfledged Army Personnel as he was discharged before passing the technical trade test and his total period during the course of training in the Army before discharge was only for one year twenty seven days out of which 57 days had been kept aside on account of leave and hospitalisation. A reply to the counter affidavit has also been filed by referring to. various judgments, on the point of limitation and also on the ground of jurisdiction and as per the applicability of Rule 173 of Army Pension Rules. Various judgments referred to regarding limitation only relate to appointment on compassionate ground. Here the question of acquiescence. The petitioner remains satisfied by grant of invalidity gratuity of Rs. 50/ - for long 35 years and then he moved before this Court. By that time all his claims became stale on the face of it. Regarding jurisdiction of this High Court I do find fprce in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the discharge order has been communicated to the petitioner and rejection of his disability pension at his residence at Bihar, then definitely this High Court has got jurisdiction. On the face of it the petitioner did not become a fulfledged soldier when he had been discharged. Soon after the first training the petitioner became ill, he took earned leave and then hospitalised then he was found to be disabled. When he had not become a fulfledged soldier the question of applicability of pension Rules does not come in. Moreover the matter had been decided long back in the year 1965 by the authorities and the petitioner remained satisfied with it for more than three decades. In that way I do not find that the petitioner has got any case wherein this Court can give any relief by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. of the Constitution of India.