9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the petitioner's right to pension was interfered with unjustly and in violation of natural justice. 2. Whether the pension granted to the petitioner constitutes property under Article 31 of the Constitution. 3. Whether the revision of the petitioner's pension was valid under the amended Army Instruction. 4. Whether the petitioner was deprived of his property right without due process and in an arbitrary manner. 5. Whether the delay in filing the petition should lead to its dismissal. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a civilian clerk in the Army Ordnance Corps, developed diabetes necessitating his repatriation in 1946. After being declared unfit for service and granted a disability pension, the pension was later canceled in 1955, stating a reassessment of disability at 20%, disentitling him from any pension. The petitioner filed a petition in 1958 alleging unjust interference with his pension rights. The court considered if the right to pension was a property right under Article 31 of the Constitution, citing relevant case law to determine the nature of the pension as a fundamental right. 2. The petitioner argued that the pension granted for life could not be revised under the amended Army Instruction of 1950. The court analyzed the nature of the pension as a right granted in accordance with rules, which could not be unilaterally modified without due process. The court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to the pension as a matter of right, and any revision should have been in accordance with the rules and with the petitioner's opportunity to present his case. 3. The court invoked Article 226 of the Constitution to enforce the petitioner's property right, emphasizing that no person shall be deprived of property except by authority of law. The court held that the petitioner was deprived of his property right in an arbitrary manner, emphasizing the importance of upholding fundamental rights. The court rejected the respondent's argument of delay in filing the petition, citing a recent Supreme Court decision that delay cannot defeat the purpose of a writ under Article 226. 4. The respondent contended that the disability pension was granted under a mistake rectified by a second medical board. The court analyzed the findings of the medical boards and emphasized the need for legal justification for executive actions, citing British jurisprudence. The court held that the petitioner's life pension was abolished without prima facie justification and without proper notice, emphasizing the role of the judiciary in upholding rights against executive actions. 5. The respondent argued that the pension was a matter of grace and bounty, not a legal right. The court rejected this argument, noting the absence of legal support for this claim and considering the petitioner's long enjoyment of the pension. The court held that there was a serious interference with the petitioner's property right, setting aside the cancellation of the pension and awarding costs to the petitioner.
|
