RAM KUMAR BHAGAT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE of the grounds upon which a person is entitled to freedom fighter 'spension, as has been mentioned in Clause (3)(e) of the explanation appended to Clause 4 of the scheme, is as follows: ''

(2.) A plain reading of this sentence would make it amply clear that the required essential condition is permanent incapacitation of the person by reason of firing or lathi charge. In R. Narayan vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 746, the Supreme Court felt that it may not be necessary for the person to be permanently incapacitated, but it would suffice if one of his limbs has been permanently incapacitated. In the order dated 27th March, 2000 rendered by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7935/ 1997 filed by the petitioner earlier challenging the decision of the Union of India not to grant pension to him, this Court felt that the decision of the Central Government rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had suffered only 10% disability or incapacitation and not total one must be held to be illegal and arbitrary. This Court therefore further expanded the scope of the requirement and held that when a person is incapable of moving one of his legs to the extent of 100% but can move the same only upto 90% and that capability has reached permanency, it is his permanent incapacitation within the meaning of the Clause mentioned above, and remitted back the matter to the Government for reconsideration.

(3.) IT must be kept in mind that the Supreme Court held that permanent incapacitation is the requirement and not permanent total incapacitation. As aforesaid, the Supreme Court felt that the required permanent incapacitation may be to a limb and not necessarily to the totality of the human being. This Court, as aforesaid, in the previous judgment held that the permanent incapacitation, even of a limb, should be treated to be a permanent incapacitation and not the degree of the permanent incapacitation. In other words, this Court held that when the petitioner permanently lost his power to move 100% of his one leg and was capable of only moving 90% of the same, and that having reached finality, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner . on the ground that the petitioner has suffered" 10% disability or incapacitation is illegal and arbitrary. This judgment being binding on the Central Government and the Central Government having not preferred an appeal against that judgment of this Court, is bound thereby and is incapable of contending to the contrary.