Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed for setting aside the order dated 03-10-2019 read with order dated 28-02-2020, passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, whereby the arrears of disability pension were restricted to three years from the date of filing of the Original Application, the Division Bench of Sureshwar Thakur and Sudeepti Sharma, JJ., stated that an evident mis-communication or an untruthful communication was made to the petitioner about his dis-entitlement to disability pension, on the ground that the same was neither attributable nor aggravated by military service. When the miscommunication or untruthful communication, was subsequently unmasked, the petitioner promptly availed his lawful remedies.
Thus, the Court quashed and set aside the relevant part of the impugned order regarding restricting the arrears of pension up to three years since the filing of the petition. The Court stated that the petitioner was entitled to the complete disability pension from the date it was accrued to him as per medical board, along with the interest at the rate of 7% per annum.
Background
The petitioner was enrolled in the Army on 01-09-1993 and was invalided out from service on 15-06-2003 on the premise of his falling in the low medical category. At the time of his invalidation, he was brought before the Release Medical Board, wherein, his disability “Generalised Tonic Colonic Seizure-67” was assessed at the rate of 20% permanent i.e. for life. Further, the said disability was declared to be aggravated by military service owing to physical stress and strain of service. However, the administrative authority interfered in the matter and declared his disabilities neither being attributable nor being aggravated by military service and thereby the espoused disability pension was denied to him.
Hence, the petitioner filed the application before the Armed Forces Tribunal for grant of disability pension, whereby it was held that since the petitioner came to the Tribunal after a gap of sixteen years after his retirement, thus the arrears were restricted to three years from date of filing of original application. Thus, aggrieved from the order, the petitioner filed the present petition.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated an evident miscommunication, or an untruthful communication was made to the petitioner about his dis-entitlement to disability pension, on the ground that the same was neither attributable nor aggravated by military service. Further, because of such miscommunication, he chose not to make any motion against the authorities concerned. Consequently, this delayed motion might become construable to be hit by the vices of delays and laches.
The Court stated that since at the very inception, an evidently completely untruthful communication was rendered to the petitioner and thus, when he believed the truth of the said rendered miscommunication to him, he did not promptly raise a motion against it. Further, through an RTI Act, the petitioner obtained an information on 27-02-2019, about the falsity of the communication made to him regarding disability pension. When the miscommunication or untruthful communication, was subsequently unmasked, the petitioner promptly availed his lawful remedies.
The Court stated that evidently the respondent through practicing the vices of Suggestio Falsi, and Suppressio Veri, from the very inception, could not subsequently take defence of estoppel. The Court stated that despite the petitioner holding an indefeasible right to become the able recipient of disability pension, there was a financial detriment to the petitioner. Further, the medical board opinion was required to be respected, especially when no challenge was made to its decision.
Thus, the Court quashed and set aside the relevant part of the impugned order regarding restricting the arrears of pension up to three years since the filing of the petition. The Court stated that the petitioner was entitled to the fullest complement of disability pension from the date it was accrued to him as per medical board, along with the interest at the rate of 7% per annum.
[Kewal Singh v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 11728, decided on 27-09-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Navdeep Singh, Advocate;
For the Respondent: Anita Balyan, Advocate.
