IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1099 of 2007 BHAGWAT SAH ARMY NO.7075664 EX . Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS . ----------- 9. 30.4.2010. Heard Mr. Fulman Singh for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Junior Counsel to Mr. Sarvadeo Singh for the Union of India and Mr. Jainendra Kumar Sinha for the respondent no.7, State Bank of India. The petitioner was discharged from Army service with effect from 3.2.1979 and was also provided with disability pension vide EME letter No.7075664/RA-5/Pen dated 24.8.1983 appended at Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It is contended that though the petitioner was discharged from the service and was also provided with the disability pension, but the disability element of the pension though was sanctioned on 24.8.1983, but the payment thereof was made after a lapse of 23 years as is evident from the letter of the Senior Record Officer dated 28.2.2006 enclosed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Learned counsel thus submits that there is unexplained delay on the part of the respondent authorities in making payment of disability 2 element which has been delayed for a period of 23 years entitling the petitioner to claim interest thereon. The second demand raised by the petitioner is that once having allowed the disability pension to the petitioner his Army Group Insurance was to be calculated on the basis of the disability element in terms of the Army Group Insurance Fund Rule. Learned counsel, in support of his contention, with reference to Annexure-R/2 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent authorities which is a letter dated 2.5.2001, submits that the petitioner is eligible for the payment of the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said letter clarifies the categories which are not eligible for payment of disability benefits under the Army Group insurance scheme and which are as follows: (a) The indl was admitted to hosp on the crucial date of commencement of enhance service (b) The indil is UNWILLING to continue in service in sheltered appointment after having been place LMNC (P). (c) The indl was in MC on the crucial date of commencement of enhance service 3 (d) The indl was discharged from service being UNDESIRABLE/Own request (e) The indl was discharged on completion of terms of engagement (f) Being Alcoholism/Drug addiction (g) Less than 20 % disability. Learned counsel thus submits that the case of the petitioner does not fall in either of the category for the reasons that though he was discharged on completion of the terms of engagement, but was provided with the disability benefits. He with reference to the statements made in para-8 of the counter affidavit, submits that it is the case of the respondents themselves that the petitioner was discharged from service on fulfillment of the conditions of enrolment. He thus submits that the respondents also do not say that the discharge was on completion of the engagement rather it was on the fulfillment of the conditions of enrolment in the class. He further submits that as the petitioner has already been accorded with disability benefits, he becomes entitled to draw the disability benefits from the Army Group Insurance Scheme. The third issue raised by the petitioner 4 is relatable to payment of ex gratia amount. Learned counsel relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2007 SC 1935 (Union of India Vs. Bashirbhai R.Khilji) submits that the petitioner is entitled to an ex- gratia payment of Rs.5 lacs. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India opposing the prayer made by the petitioner contends that whatever was found admissible to the petitioner, has since been paid to him and the details thereof has been set out in the counter affidavit. It was submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to disability benefit under Army Group Insurance Fund since he was discharged on completion of the terms of engagement. He further submitted that no claim either for interest on belated disbursal of the benefits or for ex gratia payment, has been made out by the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and upon perusal of the material available on records of the proceedings, I am of the opinion that the payment of the disability benefit to the petitioner was indeed delayed for a period of 23 years at the instance 5 of the respondents authorities and who are liable to pay interest at the rate of Rs.5% per annum to the petitioner for this unexplained delay. The petitioner would be entitled to interest on the amount of disability pension with effect from the date the disability pension was allowed to him, i.e. 24.8.1983 until the amount was paid to him under the order dated 28.2.2006 (Annexure-3) within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In so far as the claim of the disability benefits under the Army Group Insurance Scheme, is concerned, the respondent concerned would examine the claim of the petitioner taking into consideration that it is not a case of discharge from service on own request rather the same is accompanied with a grant of disability pension. In case the claim of the petitioner is found to be admissible, he should be provided with the disability benefits under the Army Group Insurance Fund and in case the claim is not found admissible, it should be disposed of by a reasoned order. However, as regarding the claim of ex- gratia is concerned, I find that the judgment 6 passed in the case of Bashirbhai (supra) is in a different context and is not applicable on the facts involved in the present case. Further, I find that no such relief has been prayed in the writ petition. In the circumstances, the prayer for ex-gratia made by the petitioner is rejected. The writ petition is disposed of with the directions aforesaid. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)