Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.71 seconds)
Ganpat Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 24 February, 2015 cites

Dharamvir Singn vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 July, 2013

(12) In the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and others (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 316, we unhesitatingly hold that if not attributable, the loss of eye sight was certainly aggravated by the Military service. Since the MAMTA disability suffered by the petitioner was 20%, he is entitled 2015.03.18 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13619-2014 5 to the benefit of disability element of pension in accordance with Reg. 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961. (13) This takes us to the second ground of rejection of the petitioner's claim by the Tribunal, namely that the claim was barred by limitation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 56 - Full Document

Ex.Naik Umed Singh vs Union Of India & Others on 14 May, 2014

(14) The pension claim is a recurring cause of action which accrues and is revived every month. It is difficult to hold that such a claim can be barred by limitation. The issue is no longer res integra. Such a situation has been elaborately dealt with by a co-ordinate Bench in Umed Singh (Ex. Naik) v. Union of India and others 2014(2) RSJ 658 after referring to the binding precedents of the Supreme Court to conclude as follows:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 13 - H Gupta - Full Document
1