In a recent legal case, the court delves into the principle of equality in pension entitlement for military service members, particularly focusing on the analysis of statutory rules and regulations governing Territorial Army personnel. The court’s detailed examination sheds light on the importance of fairness and reason in contractual agreements within the military context.
Facts
- Appellant discharged from ALC on 07 November 2009, instructed to report back to his Unit
- Invalided out of service on 1 January 2012 with 80% disability attributable to military service
- Approached AFT for disability pension as per Regulation No 292 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961
- CoI held from 13 November 2009 found appellant’s injury attributable to military service, approved by Station Commander on 11 January 2010
- Appellant re-enrolled in Territorial Army on 1 August 2007 after 25 years in Regular Army
- Granted 10 days’ leave in April 2009, met with serious accident on 24 April 2009
- Appeal challenging AFT’s dismissal of disability pension grant
- Medical assessment at ALC declared 80% disability attributable to military service
- The appellant, who sustained a significant injury resulting in 80% disability during military service, was denied disability pension due to a separate scheme and service conditions for Ecological Task Force (ETF) members.
- The appellant filed for leave to appeal against the rejection of disability pension claim.
- The AFT allowed the application for appeal but framed a different question of law regarding pensionary benefits for members of the Ecological Task Force of the Territorial Army.
- The AFT’s decision to grant leave to appeal and reframe the question of law is being challenged in the present appeal.
Also Read: Presumption of Genuine Endorsements in Cheque Case
Arguments
- The appellant’s counsel argued against the respondent-Union of India’s stance regarding disability pension entitlement for members of the ETF.
- The respondent-Union of India provided separate terms and conditions in a communication dated 31 March 2008, stating that ETF members would not be eligible for disability pension.
- The communication authorized the raising of two additional companies for 130 Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army) under Rule 33 of the Territorial Army Act, Rules 1948.
- The respondents referenced Clause (iv) of Sub-Para (d) of Para 1 of the communication, highlighting the pension entitlement for Territorial Army personnel based on earlier regular Army service.
Also Read: Medical Negligence and Compensation: A Landmark Decision
Analysis
- Officers and enrolled persons in the Territorial Army are subject to the provisions of the Army Act 1950 and rules made thereunder, equivalent to the same rank in the Regular Army.
- The grant of pensionary awards to members of the Territorial Army follows the general regulations applicable to corresponding personnel in the Army, with exceptions in case of inconsistency within the regulations in the chapter specific to the Territorial Army.
- A disability pension may be granted to an individual who is invalided out of service due to a disability attributable to or aggravated by military service in a non-battle casualty, assessed at 20% or more.
- AFT was not justified in rejecting the claim of the appellant as per the Territorial Army Act, 1948 and Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961.
- The ETF established as an additional company for 130 Infantry Battalion of Territorial Army, entitling the appellant to disability pension.
- Appellant denied disability pension despite injury attributable to Military Service and not due to negligence.
- Statutory Rules and Regulations prevail over internal communication between government organs.
- Grant of pensionary awards to Territorial Army members governed by rules applicable to Army unless inconsistent.
- Principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution applies even if one party has no meaningful choice in a contract.
- Principle of inequality of bargaining power applies in circumstances where it results from disparity in economic strength of contracting parties.
- Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law and equal protection.
- The Constitution upholds fairness and reason in contracts, especially in situations of unequal bargaining power.
- Courts have the authority to strike down unfair clauses in contracts due to inequality in bargaining power.
- Individuals can be compelled to agree to unfair contracts due to lack of meaningful choice.
- The principle of fairness and reason in contracts aligns with the goal of social and economic justice.
- The judiciary must assess each case based on its unique circumstances and the principles of social and economic justice.
- In the present case, the Union of India and a retired soldier seeking re-employment in the Territorial Army do not have equal bargaining power.
- The observations made in a document are not considered to be of assistance to the respondents’ case.
Also Read: Remand of Writ Petition for Restoration and Decision on Merits
Decision
- Present appeal allowed, setting aside the judgment and order dated 10 October, 2018 passed by AFT in O.A. No. 149 of 2018.
- No order as to costs.
- Question of law framed by AFT on October 31, 2018, already answered in para (21).
- Respondents directed to grant disability pension to the appellant as per rules applicable to Members of the Territorial Army from January 1, 2012.
- Respondents directed to clear arrears from January 1, 2012, within three months from the date of this judgment with 9% interest per annum.
- All pending applications disposed of.
Case Title: PANI RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA (2021 INSC 922)
Case Number: C.A. No.-002275 / 2019
