//
archives

Ministry of Defence

This tag is associated with 3 posts

Service matter – whether Non Practising Allowance (NPA) payable to the doctors employed in Central Health Services, the Railways and other Departments of the Government, who retired from service prior to 1.1.1996 is to be added to their basic pay for calculation of pension payable to them. = K.C. Bajaj and others …Appellants versus Union of India and others …Respondents = http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41019

 whether Non Practising Allowance (NPA) payable to  the  doctors  employed     in Central Health Services,  the  Railways  and  other  Departments  of  the   Government, who retired from service prior to 1.1.1996 is  to  be  added  to   their basic pay for calculation of pension payable to them. =       whether NPA admissible … Continue reading

The Persons with disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995= Mental disorders – benefits under disability act = whether at the time of discharge from service he was suffering from a disease which made him unfit to continue in service and whether he would be entitled to disability pension.=Although, the Courts are extremely loath to interfere with the opinion of the experts, there is nothing like exclusion of judicial review of the decision taken on the basis of such opinion. What needs to be emphasized is that the opinion of the experts deserves respect and not worship and the Courts and other judicial / quasi-judicial forums entrusted with the task of deciding the disputes relating to premature release / discharge from the Army cannot, in each and every case, refuse to examine the record of the Medical Board for determining whether or not the conclusion reached by it is legally sustainable.= “You have been diagnosed as a case of SCHIZOPHRENIC REACTION and not LUNATIC. As such your request to produce you before a medical board to examine you whether you are Lunatic or free from LUNACY does not arise. Therefore no resurvey medical board can be held in your case.”= His case was considered on 14.11.1977 by the Invaliding Medical Board held at Military Hospital, Meerut and on its recommendations, he was discharged from service. His claim for disability pension was rejected by Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad on the ground that the disease, i.e., Schizophrenic Reaction, which was the cause of his discharge was not attributable to the military service.= Unfortunately, the Tribunal did not even bother to look into the contents of the certificate issued by the Invalidating Medical Board and mechanically observed that it cannot sit in appeal over the opinion of the Medical Board. If the learned members of the Tribunal had taken pains to study the standard medical dictionaries and medical literature like “The Theory and Practice of Psychiatry” by F.C. Redlich and Daniel X. Freedman, and Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, then they would have definitely found that the observation made by Dr. Lalitha Rao was substantially incompatible with the existing literature on the subject and the conclusion recorded by the Invaliding Medical Board that it was a case of Schizophrenic Reaction was not well founded and required a review in the context of the observation made by Dr. Lalitha Rao herself that with the treatment the appellant had improved. In our considered view, having regard to the peculiar facts of this case, the Tribunal should have ordered constitution of Review Medical Board for re-examination of the appellant. 18. In Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) v. S. Balachandran Nair (2005) 13 SCC 128 on which reliance has been placed by the Tribunal, this Court referred to Regulations 173 and 423 of the Pension Regulations and held that the definite opinion formed by the Medical Board that the disease suffered by the respondent was constitutional and was not attributable to Military Service was binding and the High Court was not justified in directing payment of disability pension to the respondent. The same view was reiterated in Ministry of Defence v. A.V. Damodaran (2009) 9 SCC 140. However, in neither of those cases, this Court was called upon to consider a situation where the Medical Board had entirely relied upon an inchoate opinion expressed by the Psychiatrist and no effort was made to consider the improvement made in the degree of illness after the treatment. 19. As a corollary to the above discussion, we hold that the impugned order as also orders dated 14.7.2011 and 16.9.2011 passed by the Tribunal are legally unsustainable. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The orders passed by the Tribunal are set aside and the respondents are directed to refer the case to Review Medical Board for reassessing the medical condition of the appellant and find out whether at the time of discharge from service he was suffering from a disease which made him unfit to continue in service and whether he would be entitled to disability pension.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=40505 Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5922 OF 2012 Veer Pal Singh …Appellant versus Secretary, Ministry of Defence …Respondent J U D G M E N T G. S. Singhvi, J. 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 19.12.2011 of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Lucknow … Continue reading

The first respondent was deployed between 1.2.1984 and 3.10.1986 as the Commanding Officer of the 6 Armoured Regiment which was a new raising at the relevant time in the Indian Army. The unit was authorized for one signal special vehicle. In case such a vehicle was not held by the unit it was authorized to modify one vehicle with ad-hoc special finances for which it was authorized to claim 75% of Rs.950/- initially and claim the balance amount on completion of modification work.= “18………..The Code does not contain any precise and specific definition of the words “intent to defraud”. However, it has been settled by a catena of authorities that “intent to defraud” contains two elements viz. deceit and injury. A person is said to deceive another when by practising “suggestio falsi” or “suppressio veri” or both he intentionally induces another to believe a thing to be true, which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true. “Injury” has been defined in Section 44 of the Code as denoting “any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property”.” – “14. To summarize: the expression “defraud” involves two elements, namely, deceit and injury to the person deceived. Injury is something other than economic loss that is, deprivation of property, whether movable or immovable, or of money, and it will include any harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or such others In short, it is a non-economic or non- pecuniary loss……..”- The armed forces are known for their integrity and reputation. The senior officers of the Armed Forces are expected to be men of integrity and character. When any such charge is proved against a senior officer, the reputation of the Army also gets affected. Therefore, any officer indulging into such acts could no longer be retained in the services of the Army, and the order passed by the General Court Martial could not be faulted.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 7241 OF 2002 Union of India through its Secretary Ministry of Defence … Appellants Versus Rabinder Singh … Respondent J U D G E M E N T H.L. Gokhale J. This appeal by Union of India through the Secretary to Government, … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,865,401 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,903 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com