HC deplores Centre’s ‘insensitive’ approach to ex-servicemen’s disability dues

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has deplored the Union of India’s repeated failure to implement final judgments of the Supreme Court, while calling its conduct towards ex-servicemen “insensitive” and a cause of avoidable litigation.

Dismissing three clubbed writ petitions filed by the Centre against army personnel, the division bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice HS Grewal asserted once a final judgment had been passed by the Supreme Court laying down a law, it was binding on the Union of India to follow it for all.

“We are daily finding ex-servicemen approaching the AFTs for their rights which stand already crystallised by final judgments of the Supreme Court. Unnecessary litigation is being burdened both before the AFT as well as before this court on account of insensitiveness and an attitude for not complying with the Supreme Court’s judgments which have attained finality. We deplore the approach adopted by the Union of India towards its own ex-Army personnel,” the bench asserted

In one of the matters, the bench was told that the “disability element of disability pension” was rounded off by the AFT to 50 per cent from March 6, 2009 — the date of review medical board. The Centre’s stand in the matter was that this rounding off was unjustified.

The bench observed that the ex-serviceman was on March 6, 2009, re-assessed to have disability of 30 per cent. It was required to be rounded off in view of a final judgment. However, the rounding off was not done by Union of India and other petitioners, prompting the respondent-ex-servicemen to approach the AFT. The tribunal, accordingly, passed an order rounding off “disability element of disability pension” at 50 per cent.

The bench, during the course of hearing, was also informed that the Supreme Court, in an interim order dated May 9 had stayed the operation of directions for disbursal of arrears beyond three years preceding the filing of the application. Reliance was placed on a previous decision, where arrears for only a three-year period were agreed to be paid at the behest of the Additional Solicitor-General.

The bench clarified that such consent by the ASG could not be construed as law laid down by the Supreme Court for limiting arrears to only three years prior to the application.

“In our opinion, liberal interpretation has to be given to the laws, and to limit claim only to a period of three years would be a travesty of justice… In view of the binding law of precedent of the Supreme Court, we are bound to follow the same, and the AFT has therefore rightly granted the benefits of arrears,” the bench added.

India