Page 65 - 5_COMPENDIUM VOL-5

SUPREME COURT Important Judgements

4. A sum of Rs.10450 on account of invalid gratuity and a 1993 custody while serving with 166 Military entry
sum of Rs.15711 on account of dcrg has been admitted. In Hospital, c/o 56 APO
case, the individual dies before receiving dcrg amount it (d) 30 May 28 days Rigorous Imprisonment in military 39(b) Red Ink
should not be paid to his heirs & the matter referred to g-4 1994 custody while serving with 166 Military entry
section of this office.” Hospital, c/o 56 APO
(e) 22 Jun 28 days Rigorous Imprisonment in military 39(b) Red Ink
1995 custody while serving with 155 Base entry
th
5. On 6 October 1998, the Respondent filed an appeal against Hospital C/o 99 APO
(f) 12 Sep 28 days Rigorous Imprisonment in military 39(b) Red Ink
the rejection of disability pension. The Appellate Authority rejected 1995 custody while serving with 155 Base entry
Hospital, c/o 99 APO
th
the appeal. By a communication dated 11 January 2000, the (g) 14 Feb 28 days Rigorous Imprisonment in military 39(b) Red Ink
1996 custody while serving with 155 Base entry”
Hospital c/o 99 APO
Respondent was informed that his appeal against rejection of

disability pension had been rejected by the first Appellate Authority.
8. The Appellants contend that the Respondent was a habitual

th
6. On 25 August 2017 i.e. almost 20 years after his discharge and offender who kept breaching military discipline, notwithstanding
over seventeen and a half years after the dismissal of his appeal repeated counseling and advice given by his superiors. He proved to

against the rejection of disability pension, the Respondent sent a be an inefficient soldier. Be that as it may, the fact remains that, for

legal notice claiming disability pension on the ground of parity with 20 years, the Respondent did not question his discharge.

one Dharamvir Singh and one Rajbir Singh.
th
9. By a communication dated 27 October 2017, the Appellant No.
3 replied to the said notice stating:-
7. The case of the Respondent appears to be distinguishable since

“You have been discharged under Army Rule 13(3) III (v)
the Respondent was not discharged on medical grounds, unlike Rajbir
being undesirable soldier and not invalidated out from
Singh or Dharamvir Singh. It appears that in course of his career, the
service as mentioned in your above legal notice. Hence,
Respondent had earned red ink entries in his service records on seven disability pension is not admissible as per existing rules in

force”
occasions, as per the particulars given hereinbelow :-

“S. Date of Punishment awarded Sec of Remarks 10. Being aggrieved, the Respondent filed O.A. No. 53 of 2018
No. Offence Army Act
1950
before the Tribunal claiming disability pension and benefits under
(a) 25 Oct 28 days Imprisonment in military custody 39(b) Red Ink
1990 while serving with 4002 Field Ambulance entry Regulation 183 of the Army Pension Regulation, 1961. The application
(b) 25 Apr 14 days detention in military custody while 39(b) Red Ink
1991 serving with Command Hospital (Western entry has been allowed by the judgment and order impugned.
Command) Chandimandir
(c) 05 Sep 28 days Rigorous Imprisonment in military 39(b) Red Ink

3 4

53