In a significant ruling by the Supreme Court of India, a case regarding family pension rights of discharged military personnel was decided. The judgement has far-reaching implications for veterans and their families, ensuring their rights are protected and upheld by the legal system.
Facts
- The appellant’s spouse, a Junior Commissioned Officer, was discharged from service due to non-availability of sheltered appointment in the unit.
- No Invalidation Medical Board was held prior to his discharge.
- The appellant’s grievance is that her spouse was not granted pension after his discharge.
- The appellant cites the case of Rajpal Singh and argues that a member of the force is presumed to be in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service.
- The appellant’s spouse served in the Siachen Glacier and was later shifted to a counterinsurgency area in Jammu and Kashmir.
- He was downgraded to low medical category P2 before being discharged in August 2001.
- The Armed Forces Tribunal rejected the appellant’s claim for pension.
- The appellant submitted a reply to the show cause notice stating the desire to continue service, but due to discharge, requested a manner that would enable other service in the civilian sector.
- The discharge of Original Name was deemed invalid by a two judge Bench of the Court.
- It was held that the Invalidating Board process under Rule 13(3)(I)(ii) of the Army Act, 1950 had not been followed.
- This non-compliance with the procedural requirement rendered the discharge of Original Name invalid.
Also Read: Scheduled Castes Reservations: Sub-Classification Dispute
Arguments
- Notice to show cause issued to the spouse of the appellant on 2 March 2001.
Also Read: Case Summary: Bar Council of India vs. State Bar Councils
Analysis
- Discharge of the appellant’s spouse without convening an Invalidation Medical Board was deemed illegal.
- The order of discharge must be subjected to an Invalidating Board as per Rule 13(3)(III)(v).
- The show cause notice referred to Rule 13(3)(III)(v) as the basis for the discharge.
- Argument stating the Jawan accepted the discharge and no Invalidation Board was required was refuted.
- The discharge order was not appealed against as per legal provisions.
- The case of Dharam Singh was mentioned but deemed not directly applicable due to different rules.
- Medical condition of the appellant’s spouse was argued to be constitutional and unrelated to military service.
- Response provided by the Jawan to the show cause notice was considered.
- Rule 13(3)(III) specifies the need for an Invalidation Board for discharge in such cases.
- No Invalidation Medical Board was held in the present case.
- Rule 13 specifies Authorities empowered to authorize discharge.
- The Court noted that the Rule provides a specific procedure for discharge when the reason is medical unfitness.
- In the case of Rajpal Singh, the Court interpreted Rule 13(3)(I) and clarified that only cases not covered under a specific head can be covered under a residual head.
- Rule 13(3)(III)(v) did not apply to the case
- The appellant’s case for grant of family pension deserves to be accepted
Also Read: Time-Barred Arbitration Claim: Landmark Decision by Supreme Court Of India
Decision
- Arrears of family pension to be paid within three months from the date of receipt of the order
- Deceased spouse’s service to be deemed to have continued until 30 September 2007 for computing family pension
- Appeal allowed, setting aside the Armed Forces Tribunal’s judgment of 28 March 2011
- No arrears of wages payable between the date of discharge and the date of death
- No order as to costs in the circumstances of the case
- Appellant entitled to family pension based on the above terms
Case Title: SULEKHA RANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA
Case Number: C.A. No.-001280 / 2019
