Court No. - 32
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 658 of 2004 Appellant :- Bali Ram Pathak & Another Respondent :- Union Of India & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Kamlesh Kumar,Bablu Singh,Manoj Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,B.N. Singh,Naresh Chandra Nishad,Pramod Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed in Court today is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for respondents and perused the record.
The present special appeal is reported to be filed beyond time by 78 days. Since, there was no proper affidavit and as such time was allowed to file supplementary affidavit.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deponent had no knowledge when impugned order was passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition vide order dated 16.12.2002 and the same was not communicated within time by the then counsel. Thereafter, when he got information, the special appeal was got prepared, however the same was kept pending. Further, it has been mentioned in the supplementary affidavit that the appellant no.1-Baliram Pathak has already died and his daughter-in-law is claiming in the special appeal the appointment on a compassionate ground.
In view of the facts stated in the supplementary affidavit, the delay in filing the application is hereby, condoned.
However, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, even though the appellant no.1 has died, the appeal is also being decided on its merits.
According to the learned counsel for the appellants, since the appellant-petitioner was suffering from schizophrenia and as such the writ petition was filed before this Court for disability pension. He further submitted that when he was admitted in service, he was medically fit and as such learned Single Judge has committed error in dismissing the petition vide impugned order dated 16.12.2002. He further submitted that since the appellant-petitioner has also died and his son is not competent for service due to disability and as such appellant no. 2- daughter-in-law has filed the appeal for compassionate appointment.
The prayer was opposed by learned counsel for respondent - Union of India on the ground that there was no such provision and there is no illegality in the impugned order.
Considered the submissions.
It was not disputed that the disability pension has to be paid only in respect of those disabilities which are mentioned in Schedule 1-A of the Army Act. Learned counsel for the appellants could not point out that schizophrenia is mentioned in Schedule 1-A of the Army Act. Since, schizophrenia is not mentioned in Schedule 1-A of the Army Act and as such he was not entitled for payment of disability pension. Hence, there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Apart from that appellant no.1-Baliram Pathak has already died and no provision has been shown that the daughter-in-law would be entitled for compassionate appointment. Apart from that the appeal has been filed not by the son but has been filed by the daughter-in-law although the son is alive.
The writ petition was not regarding the compassionate appointment rather it was for payment of disability pension.
There is no illegality in the impugned judgement of the learned Single Judge, hence, no interference or direction as prayed is required. The present appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the present special appeal is, hereby, dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.11.2017 Satyam