Gyan Sudha Mishra, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant - Union of India against the order of the learned Single Judge dt. 11.08.2005 passed in SBCWP No. 5238/2004 by which the writ petition filed by the respondent -herein was allowed and the appellant herein had been directed to grant disability pension to the respondent who admittedly had served in the Indian Army and was removed from service on the ground of his disability which he had sustained while discharging the duties in the Army. The respondent had been removed from service in the year 1952 but thereafter he did not take recourse to any legal remedy for claiming pensionary benefits from the Army. However, when he attained the age of 70 years and perhaps faced financial hardship, he was compelled to file a writ petition in the High Court before the learned Single Judge which has been allowed, relying upon the ratio of the decision delivered in the matter of Smt. Emna v. Union of India reported in, 2004 (1) WLC (Raj.) 442. The learned Single Judge was thus pleased to allow the writ petition holding the respondent entitled to disability pension as the disability was held attributable to the military service.
(2.) ASSAILING the judgment and order of the Learned Single Judge, it was contended by Mr. Sanjay Pareek on behalf of the appellant -Union of India, that the respondent was removed from service on the ground of his disability in the year 1952, yet he did not take any steps claiming pension for such a long period and therefore on account of this huge and unusual delay alone, the writ petition should have been dismissed. Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant and after perusal of the reasonings assigned by the learned Single Judge, while we accept the contention of the counsel for the appellant to the extent that unusual delay and latches can be a reason to reject the writ petition, the legal position is also to the effect that the claim of pension is maintainable despite delay as it is the duty of the employer to pay the pension even without being demanded. This was the view taken by the Apex Court also in the matter of S.K. Mastan Bee v. General Manager South Central Railway and Anr. reported in, 2003 (1) LLJ 328, relied upon by the Learned Single Judge. Thus, we find no substance in the plea that disability pension should have been denied merely on account of delay and hence we do not accept this part of the argument also.
(3.) IN so far as the question regarding the period in concerned during which the respondent sufferred disability, there is no material before this Court to infer that he had not become disabled in course of discharge of military service and therefore he is fully entitled to disability pension as per the Rules of Disability Pension. In our view this pension should have been allowed in favour of the respondent without directing him to take recourse to a legal remedy and if the respondent had not moved the legal forum claiming pensionary benefit, he practically had surrendered his legal right to claim disability pension and at the stage of 70 years if he has claimed this right under compelling circumstances, the same cannot be denied merely on the ground of delay and latches. We thus see no ground to entertain this appeal and hence it stands dismissed at the admission stage itself.;