W.P. (C) No. 58 of 2015. Case: Thokchom Mangisana Singh Vs The Union of India and Ors.. Manipur High Court
| Case Number | W.P. (C) No. 58 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Kh. Tarunkumar, Advocate and For Respondents: S. Rupachandra, ASG |
| Judges | Kh. Nobin Singh, J. |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Judgement Date | April 12, 2016 |
| Court | Manipur High Court |
Judgment:
Kh. Nobin Singh, J.
1. Heard Shri Kh. Tarunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri S. Rupachandra, learned ASG appearing for the respondents.
2. The instant writ petition relates to a question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to disability pension under the provisions of Central Civil Services (Extra Ordinary Pension) Rules or not. The prayers in the writ petition are to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 13-6-2013 and to direct the respondents to grant the petitioner disability pension including a compensation of Rs. 9 lakhs.
3.1 According to the petitioner, he was recruited as General Duty in the Assam Rifles on 16-2-2004 on the recommendation of a duly constituted Selection Board. After having successfully completed the training, the petitioner was asked to perform certain demonstration along with his colleagues for their passing out parade. While he was jumping from a flying helicopter, the back of the petitioner was seriously injured and was accordingly hospitalised at the Base Hospital, Lucknow for investigation and treatment. After the petitioner having been provided further medical treatments at Guwahati and other places, he was ultimately sent to the Command Hospital, Kolkata for specialist's treatment and opinion whereat the classified specialist (doctor), after due examination, declared that the petitioner was unfit for training due to injuries and unlikely to become a fighter soldier and was not in a physical state for continuing recruits rigorous training or carry out normal duties.
3.2 On 7-1-2006, SMO (CHS), Assam Rifles issued a brief clinical history whereby the petitioner was recommended to be invalidated out of service in medical category S1 H1 A5 P1 E1 (A5) as he would not be in a position to continue training or normal duty in view of the opinion given by Lt. Col. P.K. Lahree, SRS, Class Spl. (Surg. & Ortho.) of CH (EC), Kolkata on 17-7-2005. On the basis of the discharge certificate issued by the Medical Officer i/c of the ARTC & School Hospital, Assam Rifles, on 21-1-2006 the Deputy Commandant, ARTC & School, Dimapur, Nagaland issued a certificate by which the petitioner was discharged as trainee on medical ground. Being aggrieved by the said discharge order, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 24-2-2006 to the Director General, Assam Rifles, Shillong requesting him to quash the said discharge order and reinstate him to a suitable post according to his qualification and physical ability or to give all the financial benefits/pension entitled to by him. As the said representation was not considered by the authorities, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 2049 of 2006 which was disposed of on 8-5-2013 by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Principal Bench directing the authorities of the Assam Rifles to consider and dispose of the said representation submitted by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.
4. In compliance of the said court's order, the representation of the petitioner was considered and on 13-6-2013, the Offg OIC Legal for the Offg Brig (Pers), Director General, Assam Rifles, Shillong issued an order to the effect that the petitioner could not be appointed to any post in Assam Rifles, as he had not completed the basic training and he was not entitled to disability pension as well on the grounds that his qualifying service was less than the mandatory 10 years to earn invalid pension and his disability was less than mandatory requirement of 60% as per Rule 9(3) of Central Civil Services (Extra Ordinary Pension) Rules. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 13-6-2013, the petitioner questioned it by way of the instant writ petition on the inter-alia grounds that the provisions of Rule 6 of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial