9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interference with pension rights without just cause and principles of natural justice. 2. Determining if the pension constitutes property under Article 31 of the Constitution. 3. Revision of disability pension and the legality of the same. 4. Deprivation of property right under Article 31(1) of the Constitution. 5. Delay in filing the petition and its impact on fundamental rights. 6. Rectification of disability pension under a mistake by the second medical board. 7. Contention that the pension was a matter of grace and bounty, not a legal right. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a civilian clerk in the Army Ordnance Corps, developed diabetes necessitating his repatriation to India. He was initially granted a disability pension, which was later reduced and eventually canceled without proper justification, leading to the filing of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The petitioner argued that his pension constituted property under Article 31, citing precedents to support his claim. The court analyzed the nature of the pension and the relevant regulations to determine if it qualified as a fundamental right deserving protection. 3. The court examined the revision of the disability pension and the applicable Army instructions. It concluded that the petitioner had a vested right to the pension, which could not be unilaterally modified without following due process, emphasizing the arbitrary deprivation of property rights. 4. Emphasizing the protection of property rights under Article 31(1) of the Constitution, the court highlighted the need for lawful authority to deprive an individual of their property. It criticized the unilateral cancellation of the pension without affording the petitioner an opportunity to contest the decision. 5. The respondent's argument regarding the delay in filing the petition was dismissed, citing a Supreme Court decision that emphasized the non-waivability of fundamental rights. The court reiterated the constitutional mandate to protect fundamental rights, regardless of any delay in seeking legal redress. 6. The respondent claimed that the disability pension revision was based on rectifying a mistake by the second medical board. However, the court scrutinized the findings of the initial medical board, emphasizing the need for lawful action by the executive and adherence to legal principles in such matters. 7. The respondent contended that the pension was a discretionary grant, not a legal entitlement. However, the court rejected this argument, considering the long-standing enjoyment of the pension by the petitioner as indicative of a property right. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the order canceling the pension and awarding costs. In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of upholding property rights, ensuring due process in administrative decisions, and safeguarding fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.
|
