High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Union Of India And Others vs No.1249309 Gnr. Dvr. (Mt) Gurnam … on 28 October, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Others vs No.1249309 Gnr. Dvr. (Mt) Gurnam … on 28 October, 2009
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH.

                                    L.P.A. No.969 of 2009(O&M)
                                    Date of decision: 28.10.2009

Union of India and others.
                                                  -----Appellants
                              Vs.
No.1249309 Gnr. Dvr. (MT) Gurnam Singh.
                                                -----Respondent


CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH

Present:-   Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate
            for the appellants.
                  ---


ORDER:

1. This appeal has been preferred against order of

learned Single Judge, restoring the disability pension which had

been earlier granted to the respondent but had been withdrawn.

2. The respondent served Indian Army from 1969 to

1972 when he was discharged on medical ground. He was given

disability pension which was stopped on 20.8.1974 on the ground

that his disability had come down below 20%. The respondent,

however, represented that at least service element i.e. pension

had to be continued, as held by Division Bench of this Court in

C.W.P. No.12311 of 1996 Amarjit Singh v. Union of India and

others decided on 27.2.1997, against which Special Leave
LPA No.969 of 2009 2

Petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and which

judgment was followed in number of cases. The respondent filed

writ petition with the said grievance, which has been allowed,

following the said judgment of this Court in Amarjit Singh

(supra).

3. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to

distinguish the applicability of judgment in Amarjit Singh (supra).

He, however, submitted that there was long delay in filing of the

writ petition. The pension was withdrawn in the year 1974 but the

writ petition was filed in the year 1993 and in this situation,

benefits should have been restricted to three years before filing of

the writ petition. He relies on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Union of India and others v. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8

SCC 648.

4. We would have appreciated this submission, but for

the fact that the amount is insignificant and the matter being

covered by earlier judgment of this Court in Amarjit Singh

(supra), we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken

by learned Single Judge on these peculiar facts, when pension

had been earlier granted and was withdrawn in violation of law

laid down.

5. The appeal is dismissed.


                                        (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
                                                JUDGE


October 28, 2009                             ( GURDEV SINGH )
 LPA No.969 of 2009           3




ashwani              JUDGE