Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.90 seconds)
Documents citing Ex. Sepoy Hayat Mohammed vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 11 January, 2007

Bhagu Ram vs Union Of India And Ors on 31 January, 2019

In this regard reference may be made to judgments passed by this Court in the case of Ex. AC Somveer Rana v. Union of India WP (C) No. 2418/2004, Ex. Hav (AEC) Bhup Singh v. Union of India WP (C) No. 2325/2005, Hayat Mohammed v. Union of India (2007) 138 DLT 537 and Supreme Court in Union of India v. Surendra Pandey, (2015) 13 SCC 625. We are also conscious that most of the decisions of the Supreme Court and the Coordinate Bench of this Court are concerning the Officers of the Indian Army, but that would not render the ratio inapplicable to the present case on the question of causal connection viz the attribution of the injuries to the official duties/official position.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - S Narula - Full Document

Pradip Goswami vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 December, 2022

In this regard reference may be made to judgments passed by this Court in the case of Ex. AC Somveer Rana v. Union of India WP (C) No. 2418/2004, Ex. Hav (AEC) Bhup Singh v. Union of India WP (C) No. 2325/2005, Hayat Mohammed v. Union of India (2007) 138 DLT 537 and Supreme Court in Union of India v. Surendra Pandey, (2015) 13 SCC 625. We are also conscious that Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 14166/2022 Page 5 of 7 Digitally Signed By:ALKA BOBAL Signing Date:06.12.2022 12:48 Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/005340 most of the decisions of the Supreme Court and the Coordinate Bench of this Court are concerning the Officers of the Indian Army, but that would not render the ratio inapplicable to the present case on the question of causal connection viz the attribution of the injuries to the official duties/official position.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gurjit Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 20 February, 2008

8. No doubt, when the petitioner met with an accident, he was on annual leave, but the accident was beyond control of the petitioner who was not performing any act he ought not to have done. In view of the settled law by the Apex Court, a person on casual/annual leave is deemed to be on duty and there must be apparent nexus between normal living of person subject to military law while on leave and injuries suffered by him. A person on annual leave is subject to Army Act and can be recalled at any time as leave is at discretion of authorities. This was so held by a Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Ex-Sepoy Hayat Mohammed's case (supra). In that case, the petitioner was on leave at his home town. While he was in his house, a huge steel beam and a cemented stone fell on the petitioner from the roof of the house, which was being repaired. This resulted in total paralysis of three fingers of his right hand and amputation of left hand. The petitioner was treated and was placed in permanent low medical category 'EEE'. He was discharged from military service and rejected disability pension. His writ petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to consider and grant disability pension to the petitioner.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - M Pal - Full Document

Naresh Kumar Ahlawat vs Union Of India And Others on 6 March, 2009

10. A perusal of the above provisions of Regulation 179 of Pension Regulations leaves no room for doubt that the petitioner was invalidated out of service. The petitioner sustained injury/dis- ability during his service engagement although be- ing on annual leave, and the disability would be deemed to be attributable to and aggravated by military service. In this view of the matter, we hold that the petitioner will be deemed to have been invalidated out of service and is entitled to disability pension as is admissible to defence per- sonnel who are invalidated out of service." C.W.P.No.9136 of 1994 -9- Similar view has been expressed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ex. Sepoy Hayat Mohammed V. Union of India and others, 2008 (1) S.C.T. 425. The following portion needs to be extracted from the judgment for consideration:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - A Lamba - Full Document

Union Of India And Others vs Sumanjit Singh on 19 May, 2009

LPA No. 49 of 2009 (O&M), L.P.A. No. 61 of 2009 & L.P.A. No. 66 of 2009 -13- The main reason which influenced the Division Bench of this Court to grant Disability Pension was that persons on annual leave are subject to Army Act and can be recalled at any time as leave is at the discretion of the authorities concerned. But the Apex Court in case Ex. Sepoy Hayat Mohammed vs. Union of India, 2008 (1) SCT 425 observed that "the petitioner was eligible for the grant of Disability Pension owing to the fact that while on casual leave in his home he suffered several injuries owing to a steel girder and roof slabs falling on him. One of the reasons which appear to have persuaded the same Division Bench was that persons on annual leave are subject to the Army Act and can be recalled at any time as leave is at the discretion of the Authorities concerned. A rule of this nature is necessary to cover the eruption of insurgencies or the breakout of a war. They neither envisaged nor attempted to deal with liability to pay Disability Pension. It is impermissible to extrapolate a rule catering for a particular situation to altogether different circumstances."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - A N Jindal - Full Document

Akhtari Khatun vs The Union Of India And Others on 21 April, 2014

In Ex. Sepoy Hayat Mohammed vs. Union of India and others, 138(2007) DLT 539, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court opined that a Sepoy was entitled to get disability pension irrespective of Chand Parkash 2014.04.23 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1296-2009 -4- the fact that when he got injured he was on casual leave and injuries suffered by him would be attributable to military service. Even on leave, a Sepoy would continue to be subjected to military law.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1