Read Time: 09 minutes

“In case of conflict between what is stated in internal communication between the two organs of the State and the Statutory Rules and Regulations, it is needless to state that the Statutory Rules and Regulations would prevail”, remarked a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Friday.

---

With this view, a bench of Justices L Nageshwar Rao and BR Gavai directed the Union of India to grant disability pension to one Pani Ram in accordance with the rules and regulations as applicable to the Members of the Territorial Army.

An appeal was filed by Pani Ram challenging the judgment and order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow (“AFT”), dismissing grant of disability pension.

After serving for about 25 years in Infantry of the Regular Army, Pani Ram got re­ enrolled in the Territorial Army as a full­ time soldier on August 1, 2007. While serving in Territorial Army, he was granted 10 days annual leave, to proceed to his home. After availing the said leave, when Ram was coming back on his scooter to re-join his duty, he met with a serious accident.

He was later assessed to be 80% disabled which was attributable to military service and it was not due to his own negligence.

Pani Ram then approached AFT for grant of disability pension as applicable to the personnel of Regular Army, in accordance with Regulation No. 292 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961.

His claim was   resisted   by   the   respondents   on   the   ground   that, after discharging from mechanized infantry as a pensioner, he was re­enrolled   in   130   Infantry   Battalion (Territorial   Army), Ecological Task Force, Kumaon,  as an Ex­-Serviceman (ESM).

The respondents further submitted that Ram was not entitled to any pensionary benefits in view of the letter of the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, dated 31st March 2008. which provided that the members of ETF were not entitled for disability pension.

In this regard, the bench noted that the said communication   of   the   Union   of   India   dated March 31, 2008, vide  which   the   President   of   India   had granted sanction, itself reveals that the sanction is for raising two additional   companies   for   130   Infantry   Battalion (Territorial Army) Ecological.

“It is not in dispute that the other officers or enrolled persons working   in   the   Territorial   Army   are   entitled   to disability   pension   under   Regulation   No.   173 read with Regulation No. 292 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961. When the appellant is enrolled as a member of ETF which is a company for 130 Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army), we see no reason as to why the appellant was denied the   disability   pension….”, held the Court.

The Court relied on Section 9 of the Territorial Army Act, 1948; Chapter 5   of   the   Pension   Regulations   for   the   Army, 1961 which deals with Territorial Army and Chapter   3   of   the   Pension   Regulations   for   the   Army, 1961, which deals with Disability Pensionary Awards.

Dealing with the contention of the UoI that Pani Ram had signed a “Certificate”, wherein he had agreed   to   the   condition   that   he   will   not   be   getting   any enhanced   pension   for   having   been   enrolled   in   this   force, the bench noted that the said document dealt with enhanced pension and not disability pension.

“…a Right to Equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India would also apply to a man who has no choice or rather no meaningful choice, but to give his assent to a contract or to sign on the dotted line in a prescribed or standard form or to accept a set of rules as part of the contract, however unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable a clause in that contract or form or rules may be….”, it added.

Can it be said that the mighty Union of India and an ordinary soldier, who having fought for the country and retired from Regular Army, seeking re-employment   in   the   Territorial   Army, have an equal bargaining power, questioned the bench.

It was thus of the considered view that the reliance placed on the said document was of no assistance to the case of the respondents. 

The appeal was allowed accordingly, while granting disability pension to the appellant with effect from January 1, 2012.  

“The respondents are directed to clear arrears from 1st January 2012 within a period of three months from the date of this judgment with interest at the rate of 9% per annum”, ordered the Court.

Case title: PANI RAM v UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.