Centre expected to be sympathetic towards ex-servicemen who served with sincerity: HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court said it expected the Union of India to be more considerate and sympathetic towards the cause of ex-servicemen, who served the nation with utmost dedication and sincerity.

The Division Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Kuldeep Tiwari asserted the Union of India was not expected to continue to rake up issues to deny the benefit admissible to the ex-Army men, once their entitlement had been determined on the basis of provisions contained in the Army regulations. “We deprecate the practice of filing such writ petitions,” the Bench asserted.

The assertion came on three petitions, including one by the Union of India against ex-naik Milap Chand and another respondent. The Bench observed the petition was filed assailing Armed Forces Tribunal’s order dated February 25, 2020, granting “the benefit of disability pension to the applicant-respondent, who was granted re-employment in Defence Security Corps and had been discharged.”

The Bench asserted it was, rather, pained by the fact that the Union of India was filing such petitions after expiry of more than four years, while the Tribunal’s judgment remained unchallenged. “The Tribunal’s order passed in February 2020 is sought to be assailed by filing a petition on November 8, 2024. There is absolutely no reason disclosed in the petition as to why such a belated attempt is made to assail the judgment of the Tribunal,” the Bench added.

The court asserted it transpired that the Tribunal proceeded to execute its judgment by noticing that sufficient period had expired and the judgment had not been implemented. Taking note of the undisputed facts, the Bench observed the respondent- Milap Chand was employed in Army in January 1979 as sepoy. He was discharged from the naik’s post in October 1998.

“It is not in dispute that for this period of engagement, the respondent has been granted service pension along with gratuity. It is after expiry of about four years that the respondent-Milap Chand was then engaged in DSC on September 30, 2002. He has been invalided out on January 1, 2017.”

The writ petition was filed primarily on the ground that the respondent could not have been treated as “invalided out” as the provisions relied upon by the Tribunal were misquoted and misread. “An attempt is also made to contend that the pension for service element would also not be admissible to the respondent since his period of engagement was below 15 years.”

Respondent’s counsel opposed the plea by contending that the issue sought to be raised by the Union of India had been successively rejected not only by “this court but also by other high courts and the Supreme Court”.

The Bench asserted the plea raised by the petitioners before the high court was earlier attempted to be revived before different high courts from time to time, including Kerala High Court. “We are not impressed by the attempt of Union of India to make out a case by merely referring to some judgments where the issue has been remitted back. What has to be followed is the ultimate determination of the cause. No judgment taking a contrary view from what has been held by the Supreme Court… has been placed before us,” the Bench added.

Taking note of a contradiction, the Bench dismissed the petitions after observing: “The Tribunal has proceeded on the factual premise that the respondent was discharged as having been invalided out. The oral submission advanced before us that the respondent was not invalided out is in apparent conflict with the pleading made in the writ petition… We are, therefore, not impressed by the petitioner’s argument that the respondent was not invalided out.