Decided on October 23,2013

Kirpal Singh Bankoti Respondents


- (1.) RESPONDENT was discharged by Assam Rifles on 8th January, 1969. Since then, respondent received no pension of any nature. Before his discharge, respondent had served only for a period of 6 years 5 months and 22 days. Respondent was asking for disability pension. The claim for disability pension was made by the respondent lastly in the year 1990. By an order dated 23rd July, 1990, this claim was rejected. In 2005, respondent filed a writ petition, where his prayer was to grant him invalid/disability pension. A thoroughly irresponsible counter affidavit was filed, where it was stated that the respondent has been discharged from service on invalid pension, while, in fact, respondent was discharged from service on invalidity ground. The discharge certificate of the respondent made it absolutely clear that the reason for his discharge is medical unfitness. The writ petition has been disposed of by the judgment and order under appeal dated 6th November, 2012, whereby and under, it has been held that the rejection of the claim of the respondent for pension on account of disability is correct. However, proceeding on the basis of the counter affidavit, the learned Judge felt that the respondent is entitled to invalid pension and, accordingly, has given a direction for payment of the same. Even according to the respondent, there was no difference between disability and invalidity pension. He had approached the Court for obtaining disability/invalidity pension. The learned Judge felt that disability pension is one thing and invalidity pension is another thing. Appellants are from Assam. No sooner it came to the notice of the appellants that this faux pas has been caused by its own mistake, appellants approached the learned Judge with a review application. That review application has been rejected. Therefore, appellants are before us by filing the present appeal. In preferring the appeal, there has been 263 days' delay. An application for condonation of delay, accordingly, has been filed. To that, an objection has also been filed. We have taken note of the fact as above and have also perused the averments made in the application for condonation of delay and have also taken note of the contentions raised in the objection and being satisfied with the reasons furnished, allow the application for condonation of delay.
(2.) RESPONDENT had not made any distinction either in the writ petition, or in the rejoinder affidavit pertaining to invalid pension and disability pension. Respondent himself proceeded on the basis that he is entitled to invalid/disability pension. Respondent, therefore, equated invalid pension and disability pension as the same. The learned Judge has rejected the claim for disability pension, but, for the reasons as above, proceeded on the basis that invalidity pension has been granted to the respondent. We, accordingly, admit the appeal and stay the judgment under appeal. We would have allowed the appeal today itself, but we are giving opportunity to the respondent to prefer an appeal against the selfsame order, inasmuch as, by the order itself it has been held that the respondent was not entitled to disability pension and there is no distinction in between disability pension and invalid pension.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.