IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1646 of 2008 Date of Decision: November, 2008 Union of India and others .... Appellants vs. Jagdish Singh .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajive Bhalla. Present: Mrs. Sangeeta Dubey, Central Government Counsel. Mr. Kuldeep Singh Yadav, Advocate for the respondent. **** Rajive Bhalla, J, (Oral) The Union of India challenges judgments and decrees passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari, dated 23rd March, 2006, and Additional District Judge, Rewari, dated 11th December, 2007, partly decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent and dismissing their appeal, respectively. The plaintiff-respondent was seriously injured in a mine blast on 18.04.1994, during operation 'Rakshak,' in Jammu and Kashmir. He was allowed voluntary retirement, on compassionate grounds with all pensionary benefits on 31st March, 2001 except disability pension. The plaintiff, therefore, filed a suit praying for grant of disability pension. The appellants opposed this prayer by inter alia asserting that though the plaintiff-respondent was placed in low medical category, on account of injuries suffered in a mine blast, he could not be granted disability pension as he had not appeared before the release medical board for assessment of his disability. After considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the learned trial court decreed the suit, by holding that the respondent would be entitled to such disability pension as would RSA No.1646 of 2008 -2- be determined by a release medical board and therefore directed the appellants to reconstitute a board within three months. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the appellants filed an appeal. As the appeal was barred by limitation, the first appellate court dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the appellants submits that delay in filing the appeal, was occasioned by administrative exigencies, duly explained in the application for condonation of delay. The first appellate court should have, therefore, condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits. On merits, it is submitted that as the respondent has not appeared before a release medical board, the trial court was not justified in directing the appellants to pay disability pension and to constitute a release medical board to determine disability. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. The first appellate court dismissed the appeal as barred by 161 days. Delay, except where it is mala fide or reflects gross negligence, is generally condoned. The delay, in the present case, should have been condoned as it does not suffer from any of these disabilities and the explanation, though not detailed, was sufficient to condone delay. However, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case particularly as the dispute falls within a narrow compass, remanding the case to the appellate court, to decide the appeal afresh, would add to the woes of a decorated and disabled army officer. The sole argument pressed into service against the claim for disability pension is that the respondent did not appear before a release medical board. It is not denied that the respondent has suffered a disability of 40% on account of injuries sustained during a mine blast, while on active duty. The appellants do not contest the right to receive disability pension, but only assert that it cannot be granted as he has not appeared before a RSA No.1646 of 2008 -3- release medical board. The learned trial court, therefore, rightly directed the appellants to constitute a release medical board and thereafter determine disability pension in accordance with the recommendation of the board. The impugned judgment and decree, in my considered opinion, is just and proper and does not suffer from any error whether of law or of fact or from an arbitrary exercise of discretion, as would warrant interference. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, as no question of law much-less a substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed. 14.11.2008 (Rajive Bhalla) sk Judge