LAWS(J&K)-2016-3-7

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs. RANJIT SINGH

Decided On March 16, 2016
Union of India and Ors. Appellant
V/S
RANJIT SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed against the order of the learned Writ Court made in OWP No. 100/1997 dated 06.07.2000 giving directions to the appellants to re -determine the disability of the respondent and to give him an alternate job within a period of four months. The said order was not stayed during the pendency of this appeal.

(2.) THE case of the respondent before the Writ Court was that he was recruited in JAK Rifles of the Indian Army as a Sepoy on 20.03.1979 and allotted No. 13742342 F and was thereafter promoted as Naik in the year 1992. He discharged his duties to the best of his ability and while discharging his duties at Saichen Glacier in May, 1993, he has Frost bite of toe (Right foot) and he was hospitalize on 22.05.1993 and was discharged after giving treatment on 04.06.1993 with a medical advice to place him in medical category C.E.E (Temporary). As the wound of the respondent did not heal, he was again admitted in the hospital on 26.11.1993 and was discharged on the next day with the recommendation that he will continue in medical category CEE (temporary). On 03.06.1994 the respondent was again hospitalized and discharged on 06.06.1994 with an observation by placing him in medical category CEE (permanent). Again on 12.10.1994 the respondent was taken to Military Hospital and was discharged on 18.10.1994 with remarks that he shall stay in Unit line and has not to be sent on A/L, C/L, T/D till the approval of the Medical Board by the higher authority. Finally without following any of the procedure, he was summarily discharged from the force on 31.03.1995.

(3.) THE respondent applied for disability pension, which was rejected on 26.10.1995 on the ground that the disability assessed was less than 20%. In the said order the respondent was given the option to file an appeal. Accordingly he filed an appeal on 19.03.1996. Even though the same was acknowledged, no order was passed till the writ petition was filed. The respondent having improved in his health was physically fit and willing to serve in the Army and he was discharged without his consent, which is in violation of the rules governing the service conditions of the Army personnel. In the writ petition the respondent has prayed for grant of disability pension or in the alternative he be taken back in Army service with back wages.