Supreme Court Grants Disability Pension to Territorial Army Soldier After Service Injury

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled in favor of Pani Ram, a retired regular army soldier who later served in the Territorial Army and sustained an injury that led to an 80% disability. The judgment, delivered in Pani Ram vs. Union of India & Ors., overturned the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), which had denied the petitioner disability pension. The Supreme Court directed the government to grant the petitioner disability pension along with arrears and interest.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Pani Ram, served for about 25 years in the Infantry of the Regular Army before retiring. He later re-enrolled in the Territorial Army as a full-time soldier on August 1, 2007. While serving in the Territorial Army, he was granted a 10-day leave from April 15, 2009, to April 24, 2009. On the last day of his leave, while returning to rejoin his duty, he met with a serious accident that led to the amputation of his right leg up to the knee.

Following the accident, he was initially admitted to a district hospital, then transferred to a military hospital, and subsequently airlifted to the Base Hospital in Lucknow, where his leg was amputated. Later, he was shifted to the Artificial Limb Centre (ALC) in Pune for rehabilitation. A medical board assessed his disability at 80%.

Legal Proceedings and Tribunal Decision

Under military regulations, a Court of Inquiry (CoI) was conducted to investigate whether his injuries were attributable to military service. The CoI concluded that his injuries were indeed attributable to service and not due to negligence on his part. Based on this, the Invaliding Medical Board (IMB) declared him unfit for service, leading to his invalidation on January 1, 2012.

Pani Ram applied for a disability pension under Regulation 292 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961. However, his claim was rejected by the Union of India on the ground that as a member of the Ecological Task Force (ETF) of the Territorial Army, he was not entitled to a disability pension. The AFT upheld this decision, citing a government order dated March 31, 2008, which stated that ETF members were not entitled to pensionary benefits.

Arguments Presented

Appellant’s Arguments:

The petitioner argued that he was entitled to a disability pension under Regulation 173 and 292 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, which apply to all Territorial Army personnel.
The Court of Inquiry and the Medical Board had confirmed that his disability was attributable to military service.
The denial of pension based on a government letter rather than statutory rules was illegal.
Even though he had signed a document stating that he would not receive an enhanced pension, this could not override his statutory entitlement to a disability pension.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The Union of India contended that members of the ETF of the Territorial Army were governed by separate rules that excluded them from pensionary benefits.
A government communication dated March 31, 2008, explicitly denied ETF members the right to a pension.
The petitioner had signed an undertaking acknowledging that he would not receive an enhanced pension.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court found that the government’s reliance on an internal communication to deny disability pension was untenable. The Court observed:

Statutory Rules vs. Government Orders: The pension regulations for the Territorial Army are part of statutory rules, and they override any internal government communications that contradict them.
Applicability of Pension Regulations: Regulation 292 clearly states that Territorial Army personnel are entitled to pension benefits on par with Regular Army personnel.
Unfair Bargaining Power: The Court held that the document signed by the petitioner, waiving enhanced pension, was not a valid waiver of his statutory rights. The Court cited Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly to emphasize that agreements that impose unfair conditions on employees can be struck down.
Territorial Army’s Role: The Court clarified that the ETF is part of the Territorial Army and should not be treated differently in matters of pension.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the AFT’s decision and directed the government to grant Pani Ram disability pension in accordance with the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961. It also ordered:

Arrears from January 1, 2012: The government must pay disability pension retroactively from the date of his invalidation.
Interest at 9% per annum: The arrears must be paid with interest within three months.

Key Takeaways

Territorial Army personnel are entitled to disability pensions: The Court reinforced that ETF members, like other Territorial Army personnel, are eligible for pension benefits.
Statutory rules prevail over government communications: The ruling clarifies that statutory regulations cannot be overridden by executive orders or internal letters.
Workers’ rights cannot be unfairly waived: Agreements that strip employees or servicemen of their rightful benefits are subject to judicial scrutiny.
Military service-related disabilities warrant pension benefits: The Court reaffirmed that personnel injured in service, even while on leave, should receive financial support.

This judgment sets a significant precedent for Territorial Army personnel, ensuring that their rights under military pension regulations are protected.

Petitioner Name: Pani Ram.
Respondent Name: Union of India & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice B.R. Gavai.
Place Of Incident: Pithoragarh, Uttarakhand.
Judgment Date: 17-12-2021.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: pani-ram-vs-union-of-india-&-ors-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-17-12-2021.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Pension and Gratuity
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by L. Nageswara Rao
See all petitions in Judgment by B R Gavai
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2021
See all petitions in 2021 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category