Punjab and Haryana HC upholds grant of ‘disability pension’ to hearing-impaired officer

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) to grant ‘disability pension’ to an Army officer who developed hearing loss during his service, assessed by a medical board as less than 20% for life. and was also declared aggravating military service.

At the same time, the court noted that the advantages of the verdict of the Supreme Court in Sukhwinder Singh v. Union of India and others (2014) will be applied to an officer in which the Supreme Court has held that whenever a member of the armed forces is discharged from service on account of disability, his disability must be deemed to have been established above twenty percent.

Division bench Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudipti Sharma said “Although the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled Sukhwinder Singh Vs. UOI and others (above) were adopted on 06.25.2014. However, prima facie though its merits cannot be denied to the present respondent merely on the ground that it has only prospective effect and no retrospective effect…it appears that the acceptance of the request (above) has arisen from the army authorities, who have repeatedly unreasonably avoided the onerous statutory obligation imposed on them to grant the present respondent a disability pension which otherwise, in terms of the above requirement, the law, he was entitled to become so vested“.

These observations were made during the hearing of a suit filed by the Union Government challenging the decision of the AFT to grant disability pension to a soldier officer in light of Sukhwinder Singh case.

Respondent Yarnail Singh was inducted into the Indian Army on March 31, 1988 in fit condition and was discharged from service on November 30, 2007 prior to completion of enlistment at his own request on extreme compassionate grounds.

During his service, he developed a disability of “B/L-H90 Sensorineural Hearing Loss”, which was assessed by the medical discharge board as less than 20% for life and was also declared to have been aggravated by military service.

The competent authority rejected Singh’s disability claim on the ground that the disability was assessed at less than 20%. He then filed a first appeal on July 7, 2008, which was dismissed by the Department on December 11, 2008.

Six years later, the respondent officer petitioned the Armed Forces Tribunal.

On March 7, 2019, the Tribunal ruled in his favor, relying on Sukhwinder Singh v. Union of Indiawhich states that a disability assessed below 20% may be rounded up to 50% to qualify for a pension. Offended by this order, the Union appealed to the High Court.

In the high court, the Union government argued that Regulation 173 of the Army Pension Rules, 1961, applies only to those who have lost service on account of disability and not to those who are discharged on compassionate grounds. He argued that the AFT’s trust in Sukhwinder Singh was inappropriate as the verdict was applicable to cases where a soldier was discharged from service but not where a soldier was discharged on compassionate grounds/hardship.

After hearing the arguments, the Court rejected the Union’s argument and held that the defendant’s disability was aggravated by military service, entitling him to a disability pension even without loss of disability.

He noted that a denial of benefits would result in an injustice, especially since no adverse remarks had been made during the defendant’s service.

The Court also explained that though the judgment in Sukhwinder Singh Vs. UOI and others was enacted in 2014, though its benefits cannot be denied to an officer merely on the ground that it has prospective effect only and has no retrospective effect.

“The salutary effect of the said declaration of law, therefore, is also prima facie, to be given to the soldiers, irrespective of the date of the promulgation of the said decision. If the said contribution is not made, therefore, prima facie, in the opinion of this Court, an arbitrary termination date will be applied between those soldiers who were discharged before the verdict…, thus from those soldiers who discharged after sentencing…“, he said.

Upholding and affirming the order of the Tribunal, the High Court said: “Consequently, this Court, after dismissing the writ petition, is compelled to uphold the verdict passed by the appropriate Tribunal, according to which the disability pension arrears were limited to the petitioner from 25.06.2014.“.

Name: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. vs. EX HAV JARNAIL SINGH AND ANR.

Mr. Dharm Chand Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioners/UOI.

Mr. Rajesh Segal, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

Click here to read/download the order