PANI RAM vs. UNION OF INDIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.433/2022 (Application for substitution of Lrs. Of deceased appellant) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.2275/2019 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.22552 OF 2022 (Application for correction in judgment dated 17.12.2021 PANI RAM (deceased) thr. Lrs. Applicant(s)/ Appellant VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) O R D E R Application for substitution of Lrs. of deceased appellant is allowed. Cause title be amended accordingly. Application for replacing the name of the advocate Mr. Siddhartha Iyer to Mr. Lalit Kumar in para-9 of the judgment dated 17.12.2021 passed in the above appeal is allowed. Miscellaneous Application and Interlocutory application(s) stand allowed accordingly. ....................J (L. NAGESWARA RAO) ....................J (B.R. GAVAI) NEW DELHI; th 7 March, 2022. 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2275 OF 2019 PANI RAM            ...APPELLANT VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.       ...RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T B.R. GAVAI, J. 1. The appeal challenges the judgment and order dated th 10   October   2018   passed   by   the   Armed   Forces   Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as “AFT”), vide which  the O.A. No. 149 of 2018 filed by the appellant  for grant   of   disability   pension   came   to   be   dismissed.   The st appellant also challenges the order dated 31  October 2018 passed in M.A. No. 1839 of 2018 in O.A. No. 149 of 2018, vide which though, the application for leave to appeal was allowed, but the AFT framed a different question of law. 2 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeal are as under: After   serving   for   about   25   years   in   Infantry   of   the Regular Army, the appellant got re­enrolled in the Territorial st Army as a full­time soldier on 1  August 2007. While serving th in   Territorial   Army,   on   5   April   2009,   the   appellant   was th granted 10 days’ part of annual leave from 15  April 2009 to th 24   April 2009, to proceed to his home, which was at a distance   of   few   kilometers   from   the   Unit   where   he   was posted. After availing the said leave, when the appellant was th coming back on his scooter to rejoin his duty, on 24  April 2009, he met with a serious accident. Initially, the appellant was   admitted   to   the   District   Hospital,   Pithoragarh   from where   he   was   shifted   to   the   161   Military   Hospital   at th Pithoragarh. On 25  April 2009, the appellant was evacuated by helicopter to the Base Hospital at Lucknow, where his right leg was amputated up to the knee. Thereafter, he was shifted to the Artificial Limb  Centre  (hereinafter referred to as th ‘ALC’) at Pune. On 14  September 2009, he was discharged from   ALC   and   was   granted   28   days’   sick   leave   with   the 3 instruction to report back to the ALC. After the expiry of sick th leave, he was re­admitted to ALC on 11  October 2009. On st 21  October 2009, the Medical Board was held at ALC which assessed the appellant’s disability to   be   80%. However, it could not give any opinion about the attributability aspect of th the   injury.   On   07   November   2009,   the   appellant   was discharged from ALC with instruction to report back to his Unit .  3. As per Regulation No. 520 of the Regulations for the Army, 1987, a Court of Inquiry (hereinafter referred to as th “CoI”),   was   held   from   13   November   2009   onwards   to investigate into the circumstances under which the appellant had   sustained   injury.   The   CoI   found   that   the   injury sustained   by   the   appellant   was   attributable   to   military service and it was not due to his own negligence. The said finding of CoI was duly approved by the Station Commander th th ­ Respondent No. 3, on 11  January 2010. On 25  October 2010, a re­categorization Medical Board was held at ALC, which maintained appellant’s disability at 80% and declared it as attributable to military service. Subsequently, on the 4 basis   of   the   opinion   of   the   Invaliding   Medical   Board st (hereinafter referred to as ‘IMB’), on 1   January 2012, the appellant was invalided out of service with 80% disability which was attributable to military service.  The appellant, therefore, approached AFT for grant of 4. disability pension as is applicable to the personnel of Regular Army, in accordance with Regulation No. 292 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961. The claim of the appellant was   resisted   by   the   respondents   on   the   ground   that   the appellant, after discharging from mechanized infantry as a pensioner,   was   re­enrolled   in   130   Infantry   Battalion st (Territorial   Army),   Ecological   Task   Force,   Kumaon,   on   1 August 2007 as an Ex­Serviceman (ESM). The claim of the appellant has been denied by the  respondents  on the ground that the appellant was not entitled to any pensionary benefits in view of the letter of the Government of India, Ministry of st Defence, dated 31  March 2008. 5. The AFT though held, that the injury sustained by the appellant which resulted into 80% disability was found by the competent authority to be aggravated and attributable to 5 the military service, rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground that a  separate scheme and service  conditions have been   created   for   the   Members   of   Ecological   Task   Force (hereinafter referred to as ‘ETF’), which was accepted by the appellant   and   as   such,   he   was   not   entitled   to   disability pension.  6. The appellant thereafter filed M.A. No. 1839 of 2018 in O.A. No. 149 of 2018 for grant of leave to appeal against the th judgment and order dated 10   October 2018, wherein the appellant had framed the following question of law of general public importance: “Whether the terms and conditions of service of a member   of   the   Territorial   Army   (TA)   during   the period   of   his   embodiment   with   the   T.A.   will   be governed by the statutory rules which provide for grant of ‘disability pension’ or by the departmental orders   which   deny   the   grant   of   the   disability pension to the members of a particular unit of the T.A. to which such individual belongs.” st 7. The AFT vide order dated 31   October 2018 though, allowed the application for grant of leave to appeal, framed a different question of law, as under: “Whether the members of Ecological Task Force of Territorial Army are entitled to pensionary benefits 6 at par with the members of regular Army in spite of the   aforementioned   MOD   letter   dated   31.03.2008 whereby pensionary benefits have been denied.” st 8. The said order dated 31  October 2018, passed by AFT is also a subject matter of challenge in the present appeal. 9. We have heard Shri Siddhartha Iyer, learned Counsel appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   and   Shri   Vikramjit Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the respondent­Union of India.  10. It is the specific case of respondent­Union of India that separate   terms   and   conditions   were   provided   by   it   vide st communication dated 31  March 2008, which provides that the   members   of   ETF   would   not   be   entitled   for   disability pension. Vide the said communication, the Government of India   has   communicated   to   the   Chief   of   Army   Staff,   the sanction of the President of India for raising two additional companies   for   130   Infantry   Battalion   (Territorial   Army) Ecological under Rule 33 of Territorial Army Act, Rules 1948. 11. The respondents rely on Clause (iv) of Sub­Para (d) of st Para 1 of the said communication dated 31  March 2008 : 7 “(iv)   Pension   entitlement   of   Territorial   Army personnel   earned   for   the   earlier   regular   Army Service, will remain untouched and will be ignored in fixing their pay and allowances.” 12. The   respondents   also   rely   on   a   document   titled th “Certificate” dated 30  August 2007, signed by the appellant wherein under condition (f), it is stated thus :  “(f) That, I will not be getting any enhance pension for having been enrolled in this force.” 13. It will be relevant to refer to sub­section (1) of Section 9 of the Territorial Army Act, 1948 : “Sec. 9. Application of the Army Act, 1950. (1) Every officer, when doing duty as such officer, and   every   enrolled   person   when   called   out   or embodied or attached to the Regular Army], shall, subject to such adaptations and modifications as may be made therein by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette, be subject to the provisions of the Army Act, 1950, and the rules or regulations made thereunder in the same manner and to the same extent as if such officer or enrolled person held the same rank in the Regular Army as he   holds   for   the   time   being   in   the   Territorial Army ..” 14. It could thus be seen that every such officer or enrolled person in Territorial Army when holds the rank, shall be subject to the provisions of Army Act, 1950 and the rules or 8 regulations made thereunder, equivalent to the same rank in the Regular Army.  15. Chapter   5   of   the   Pension   Regulations   for   the   Army, 1961 deals with Territorial Army. The Regulation No. 292 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 read thus: “292.   The   grant   of   pensionary   awards   to   the members of the Territorial Army shall be governed by the same general regulations as are applicable to the   corresponding   personnel   of   the   Army   except where they are inconsistent with the provisions of regulations in this Chapter” It   could   thus   be   seen   that   the   grant   of   pensionary 16. awards   to   the   members   of   the   Territorial   Army   shall   be governed by the same rules and regulations as are applicable to the corresponding persons of the Army except where they are inconsistent with the provisions of regulations in the said chapter.  17. Chapter   3   of   the   Pension   Regulations   for   the   Army, 1961,   deals   with   Disability   Pensionary   Awards,   in   which Regulation No. 173 reads thus:  “ 173.   Primary   Conditions   for   the   grant   of Disability Pension 9 Unless   otherwise   specifically   provided   a   disability pension consisting of service element and disability element   may   be   granted   to   an   individual   who   is invalided out of service on account of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service in non­battle casualty and is assessed at 20 per cent or over.” 18. The perusal thereof will reveal that an individual who is invalided out of service on account of disability, which is attributable or aggravated by Military Service in non­battle casualty and is assessed 20% or more, would be entitled to disability pension. The respondents are not in a position to point out any rules or regulations, which can be said to be inconsistent with Regulation No. 292 or 173, neither has any other   regulation   been   pointed   out,   which   deals   with   the terms and conditions of service of ETF. 19. The   communication   of   the   Union   of   India   dated st 31   March   2008,   vide   which   the   President   of   India   has granted sanction, itself reveals that the sanction is for raising two   additional   companies   for   130   Infantry   Battalion (Territorial Army) Ecological.  10 20. It   is   thus   clear   that   the   ETF   is   established   as   an additional company for 130 Infantry Battalion of Territorial Army. It is not in dispute that the other officers or enrolled persons   working   in   the   Territorial   Army   are   entitled   to disability   pension   under   Regulation   No.   173   read   with Regulation   No.   292   of   Pension   Regulations   for   the   Army, 1961. When the appellant is enrolled as a member of ETF which is a company for 130 Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army), we see no reason as to why the appellant was denied the   disability   pension.   Specifically   so,   when   the   Medical Board and COI have found that the injury sustained by the appellant was attributable to the Military Service and it was not due to his own negligence.  21. In case of conflict between what is stated in internal communication between the two organs of the State and the Statutory Rules and Regulations, it is needless to state that the Statutory Rules and Regulations would prevail. In that view of the matter, we find that AFT was not justified in rejecting the claim of the appellant.  11 22. The respondents have heavily relied on the document th dated 30   August 2007, titled “Certificate”.   No doubt that the said document is signed by the appellant, wherein he had agreed   to   the   condition   that   he   will   not   be   getting   any enhanced   pension   for   having   been   enrolled   in   this   force. Firstly, we find that the said document deals with enhanced pension and not disability pension.   As already discussed hereinabove, a conjoint reading of Section 9 of the Territorial Army Act, 1948 and Regulation Nos. 292 and 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, would show that a member of the Territorial Army would be entitled to disability pension. In any case, in this respect, even accepting that the appellant has signed such a document, it will be relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of Central   Inland   Water   Transport   Corporation   Limited 1 and Another v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Another   :

1 (1986) 3 SCC 156 12 before the law and the equal protection of the laws. The principle deducible from the above discussions on this part of the case is in consonance with right and reason, intended to secure social and economic justice and conforms to the mandate of the great equality clause in Article 14. This principle is that the  courts  will not  enforce  and   will, when called upon   to   do   so,   strike   down   an   unfair   and unreasonable   contract,   or   an   unfair   and unreasonable   clause   in   a   contract,   entered   into between   parties  who   are   not  equal  in   bargaining power. It is difficult to give an exhaustive list of all bargains   of  this   type.   No  court can  visualize   the different situations which can arise in the affairs of men.   One   can   only   attempt   to   give   some illustrations. For instance, the above principle will apply where the inequality of bargaining power is the   result  of   the   great  disparity   in  the   economic strength   of   the   contracting   parties.   It   will   apply where the inequality is the result of circumstances, whether of the creation of the parties or not. It will apply to situations in which the weaker party is in a position in which he can obtain goods or services or means of livelihood only upon the terms imposed by the stronger party or go without them. It will also apply   where   a   man   has   no   choice,   or   rather   no meaningful   choice,   but   to   give   his   assent   to   a contract or to sign on the dotted line in a prescribed or standard form or to accept a set of rules as part of the contract, however unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable a clause in that contract or form or rules may be. This principle, however, will not apply where   the   bargaining   power   of   the   contracting parties is equal or almost equal. This principle may not apply where both parties are businessmen and the contract is a commercial transaction. In today's complex world of giant corporations with their vast infrastructural   organizations   and   with   the   State through its instrumentalities and agencies entering into almost every branch of industry and commerce, 13

23. As held by this Court, a Right to Equality guaranteed   under Article 14 of the Constitution of India would also apply to a man who has no choice or rather no meaningful choice, but to give his assent to a contract or to sign on the dotted line in a prescribed or standard form or to accept a set of rules as part of the contract, however unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable a clause in that contract or form or rules may be.  We find that the said observations rightly apply to the facts of the present case.  Can it be said that the mighty Union of India and an ordinary soldier, who having fought for the   country   and   retired   from   Regular   Army,   seeking   re­ employment   in   the   Territorial   Army,   have   an   equal bargaining power.   We are therefore of the considered view that the reliance placed on the said document would also be of no assistance to the case of the respondents.   14 24. The   present   appeal   is   therefore   allowed   and   the th judgment and order dated 10  October, 2018 passed by AFT in O.A.  No. 149  of 2018 is quashed  and  set  aside.   The st question of law framed by AFT in its order dated 31  October 2018, already stands answered in view of our finding given in para (21). 25. The respondents herein are directed to grant disability pension to the appellant in accordance with the rules and regulations   as   are   applicable   to   the   Members   of   the st Territorial   Army   with   effect   from   1   January   2012.   The st respondents are directed to clear arrears from 1   January 2012 within a period of three months from the date of this judgment with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.  The appeal is allowed in the above terms. All pending 26. applications shall stand disposed of.  No order as to costs.  ……....….......................J. [L. NAGESWARA RAO] ..…....….......................J.      [B.R. GAVAI] NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 17, 2021. 15