Madras High Court
S.Thangam [Ex.Naik vs Union Of India on 26 June, 2024
Author: S.S. Sundar
Bench: S.S. Sundar
WP.No.726/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.06.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
WP.No.726/2024 & WMP.No.741/2024
S.Thangam [Ex.Naik] ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Union of India
rep.by the Secretary
Ministry of Defence
Room No.227 B Wing
Sena Bhawan, New Delhi 110 011.
2.The Chief of Army Staff
Army Headquarters, Integrated
Hqs of MOD [Army]
Post DHQ, South Block
New Delhi 110 001.
3.PCDA[P], Draupaid Ghat
Allahabad 211 014.
4.The Senior Records Officer
Mechanised Infantry Regiment
Ahmednagar 414110.
5.The Managing Director
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.726/2024
Army Group Insurance Fund
Integrated HQ of MOD [Army]
Adjutant General's Branch
AGI Bhavan RTR marg
Vasantvihar, Hew Delhi 110 057. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of
OSA.No.138/2021 dated 13.03.2023 on the file of the Armed Force
Tribunal, Chennai, quash the same and rejecting war injury Pension Claim
and consequently issue direction to the respondents to pay 100% war injury
Pension to the petitioner from the date of discharge from service, i.e,
31.01.2000 together with 12% interest.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Amritraj
For RR 1 to 4 : Mr.V.Balasubramanian
Senior Panel Counsel
For R5 : Mr.M.B.Elakkumanan
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.,] (1)Mr.V.Balasubramanian, learned Senior Panel Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.M.B.Elakkumanan, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the 5th respondent.
(2)The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.726/2024 certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned order in OA.No.138/2021 dated 13.03.2023 by the Armed Force Tribunal, rejecting the application of the petitioner claiming War Injury Pension and to direct the respondents to pay 100% War Injury Pension to the petitioner from the date of discharge from service.
(3)Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows:
(4)The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on 28.01.1983 and discharged from service on 31.01.2000 after rendering 17 years and 3 days of exemplary service. It is his case that on a command to move to Harchandpura Bridge on river Gaggar, the petitioner drove Jonga vehicle along with four other soldiers of 1 Platoon on 31.05.1992, at 6.15 hours, the vehicle got toppled when the petitioner applied brake to avoid hitting the cyclist who was crossing the road in the dim light of the morning. In the accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries leading to amputation of his right leg below knee. After the Court of Inquiry [CoI] into the accident, it was declared that the petitioner is not responsible for the accident and the ruling was that the accident was when the petitioner 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.726/2024 was in military duty. The petitioner, therefore was awarded disability element of pension at 75% for life vide proceedings dated 10.09.2012.
The petitioner was also got one time grant of Rs.50,000/- for buying wheel chair and endolite artificial limbs. However, the petitioner requested to treat the injury suffered by him out of the accident as a battle casualty / war injury. The petitioner sent a representation and the sme was rejected vide order dated 21.01.2021 on the ground that the nature of injury suffered by the petitioner at the time of accident was not a war injury or battle casualty even though the injury is grievous. The order dated 21.01.2021 was challenged before the Army Force Tribunal, Chennai, in OS.No.138/2021. By order dated 13.03.2023, the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the petitioner after elaborately considering the petitioner's claims with reference to the statutory Regulations which are applicable to the petitioner. (5)The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions in tune with the grounds raised in the writ petition. The specific case of the petitioner is that the impugned order is in violation of guidelines and provisions of Army Pension Regulation. Learned counsel for the 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.726/2024 petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled to war injury pension on the ground that the petitioner was on duty and drove the vehicle carrying a team of army personnel to an area on hearing the movement of terrorists. It is to be noted that the petitioner is entitled to war injury pension only if he had suffered injury in a war like situation which has been classified under Category E. The Tribunal also held that the petitioner is ineligible for monetary benefits of war injury / battle casualty for reasons by relying upon the paragraph No.4.1 of Ministry of Defence Letter dated 31.01.2001.
(6)The following are some of the situations classified under Category E:-
CATEGORY E:-
Death or disability arising as a result of:-
a) Enemy action in international war
b) Action during deployment with a peace keeping mission abroad.
c) Border skirmishes
d) During laying of clearance of mines including enemy mines as also minesweeping operations.
e) On account of accidental explosions of mines while laying operationally oriented mine filed or lifting or negotiating mine field laid by enemy or 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.726/2024 own forces in operational areas nearer international borders or the line of control
f) War like situations, including cases where attributable to/aggrevated by:-
i. Extremists acts, exploding mines etc., while on way to an operational area.
ii. Battle inoculation training exercises or demonstration with live ammunition.
iii. Kidnapping by extremists while on operational duty.
g) An act of violence/attack by extremists, anti- social elements etc., while on operational duty.
h) Action against extremists, antisocial elements etc., Detach/Disability while employed in the aid of civil power in quelling agitation, riots or revolt by demonstrators will be covered under this category.
i) Operations specially notified by the Government from time to time.
(7)A person can claim war injury pension only if he falls under the specific category as stated above. Unless the petitioner sustains an injury when he is engaged in battle or war like situation, he cannot claim the said pension. If a person met with a motor accident on his way to an 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.726/2024 assignment, the injury suffered by him, may be considered as an injury suffered when he was on duty. However, the war injury pension comes under different classification and this Court is unable to find any unreasonableness or discrimination or illegality while rejecting the petitioner's claim for war injury pension. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been given disability pension as per statute. (8)In the absence of any specific Rule or Regulation to support petitioner's claim, this Court is unable to find fault with the order of Army Force Tribunal, Chennai.
(9)In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [N.S., J.]
26.06.2024
AP
Internet : Yes
To
1.Union of India
rep.by the Secretary
Ministry of Defence
Room No.227 B Wing
Sena Bhawan, New Delhi 110 011.
7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.726/2024
2.The Chief of Army Staff
Army Headquarters, Integrated
Hqs of MOD [Army]
Post DHQ, South Block
New Delhi 110 001.
3.PCDA[P], Draupaid Ghat
Allahabad 211 014.
4.The Senior Records Officer
Mechanised Infantry Regiment
Ahmednagar 414110.
5.The Managing Director
Army Group Insurance Fund
Integrated HQ of MOD [Army]
Adjutant General's Branch
AGI Bhavan RTR marg
Vasantvihar, Hew Delhi 110 057.
S.S. SUNDAR, J.,
and
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.,
AP
8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.726/2024
WP.No.726/2024
26.06.2024
9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis