Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Others vs Smt.Roshni Devi on 24 August, 2010
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No.613 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision : 24.8.2010
Union of India and others
... Appellants
Versus
Smt.Roshni Devi
...Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.M.Kumar
Hon'ble Ms.Justice Ritu Bahri
Present: Ms.Geeta Singhwal., Advocate for the appellants.
Mr.Surinder Sheoran, Advocate for the respondent.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
M.M.Kumar, J.
The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 26.10.2009 rendered by learned Single Judge holding that the injury sustained by the husband of the writ petitioner-respondent who was on earned leave had to be deemingly attributed to the service of the Boarder Security Force (in brevity the 'BSF'). He lateron died. Learned Single Judge while placing reliance on the judgment of this Court rendered in case of Ex. Sepoy Sumanjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP no.6351 of 2005 decided on 21.5.2008), has allowed the writ petition by concluding that while the employee of BSF is on leave, any disability suffered during that period would be attributable to his service.
The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was that judgment rendered in the case of Ex. Sepoy Sumanjit Singh's case (supra) was entirely on different footing and Regulation 173 LPA No.613 of 2010 (O&M) 2 of Pension Regulation for the Army, 1961 was applicable whereas in the present case Rule 4(b) of the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, were applicable . While issuing notice of motion, the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the appellant has been noticed in order dated 26.7.2010.
Mr.Surinder Sheoran, learned counsel for the respondent, has pointed out that by virtue of provisions of Rule 4(c) and on its comparison with Rule 12 of the Entitlement Rule 1982, it is apparent that the provision is pari material with Note 2 (f) of Rule 12. As such rule being pari materia would be open to the same interpretation which has been given to these rules in case of Ex. Sepoy Sumanjit Singh (supra). Learned counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance on a Full Bench Judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Union of India vs. Khushbash Singh (LPA No.978 of 2009 decided on 31.3.2010) for the same proposition.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge, does not suffer from any legal infirmity because Rule 4(c) of the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules is pari materia with the provision of Rule Note 2(f) of Rule 12. Both the rules would have to be interpreted in the same manner and therefore, the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference by the Letters Patent bench. It is further appropriate to mention that in the Full Bench's Judgment in the case of Union of India (supra), a view taken is Ex. Sepoy Sumanjit Singh (supra), has also been proved. The judgment of the Full Bench in case employee covered the issue and held that while an LPA No.613 of 2010 (O&M) 3 argument to be only that any disability suffered during the period has to be deemingly attributable to the military service.
Accordingly, appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
(M.M.Kumar ) Judge (Ritu Bahri) Judge 24.08.2010 sd