Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAMESH KUMAR MISHRA versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ramesh Kumar Mishra v. Union Of India & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 167 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 13538 (17 August 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.32

Special Appeal No. 167 of 2006

Rakesh Kumar Mishra .....Appellant

Versus

The Union of India & others .....Respondents

******

Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

Heard the appellant, who appeared in person and Sri Satish Kumar Rai, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Union of India.

This special appeal under the Rules of the Court is preferred against the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 17.1.2003 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25006 of 2001 whereby the writ petition of the petitioner-appellant was allowed holding that the petitioner-appellant is entitled to pension and other benefits treating him to have retired from the rank of Havaldar (MT) Group-A with effect from 31.8.1997. A further direction was issued to re-fix his pension accordingly and to pay his entire arrears with simple interest as prevalent @ 10% per annum.

The petitioner-appellant, who has appeared in person, sought to argue that he is entitled to get 100% Disability Pension whereas he has been awarded 20% Disability Pension, which is not correct. He further submitted that he should have been given employment in the Army till he attains the age of superannuation. It is also alleged that the amount of Group Insurance and other benefits payable to the petitioner-appellant have not been paid. On the other hand, Sri Satish Kumar Rai, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Union of India submitted that in compliance to the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge, the entire amount payable to the petitioner-appellant has been paid and now nothing more is due  and payable to him.

It appears that the representation of the petitioner-appellant against lower medical category was considered by the Central Government as well as by the Director General EME. The finding of the Medical Board has not yet been challenged by the appellant. The petitioner is found to be suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia, recurrent dislocation (LT) Shoulder (OPTD), and Tear and Cruciate Ligament and Medical Meniscus (RT) Knee (OPTD). The first and second disabilities were considered by Release Medical Board as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, and third disability was considered as aggravated due to stress and strain of service assessed compositely at 40% for two years and he was granted Rs. 90/- per month as disability pension. Since the aforesaid two disabilities were not found attributable to nor aggravated and only third disability, i.e., Tear and Cruciate Ligament and Medical Meniscus (RT), which was assessed to be 40% and, therefore, the pension has accordingly been fixed. This aspect has also been considered by the Hon'ble Single Judge in detail and in the absence of any error in law or violation of any provisions of Act, Rules and Regulations in making the aforesaid assessment of disability pension, the Hon'ble Single Judge did not interfere in the assessment of disability pension.

We have also no reason to take a different view other than the view taken by the Hon'ble Single Judge. However, the grievance regarding payment of retiral benefits, it has been asserted in para-9 of the counter affidavit that in compliance to the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge, the appellant was granted pensionary benefits of Group "A" Havildar vide PCDA(P) Allahabad's PPO No.S/011961/1998 dated 2003, a sum of Rs. 2063/- on account of arrears of pay and allowances and Rs. 233/- on account of cost of writ petition have also been paid through demand draft and cheque. It is also stated that 10% interest was also paid to the petitioner-appellant on 9th September, 2003. This assertion has not been disputed in the rejoinder affidavit.

Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge. However, we provide that in the event any amount is still due and payable to the petitioner-appellant, the same should be worked out  and shall be paid accordingly, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid observation, the special appeal stands dismissed.

Dated:17.8.2006

SKM


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.