R.S.A.No.3972 of 2006(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.10196-C of 2006 in R.S.A.No.3972 of 2006(O&M) Date of Order: 18.09.2008 Amar Singh ...Appellant Versus Union of Indian and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Sarabjit Khaira, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. Mr. S.K.Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). C.M.No.10196 of 2006 Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 270 days in filing the appeal. The grounds urged in support of the prayer for condonation of delay that the appellant was not aware that an appeal has to be filed within 90 days , does not inspire confidence, however, I have proceeded to hear the counsel for the parties on merits. R.S.A.No.3972 of 2006 The appellant, impugns the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, dated 24.11.2003 and the trial Court, dated 20.08.2001. The appellant filed a suit for declaration praying that he was entitled to Pension, gratuity, leave encashment, Provident Fund, disability pension etc. along with interest as he had joined the Indian Army on 1.1.1963 and was discharged on 19.01.1967, on medical grounds. The respondent, raised a preliminary objection that the suit was barred by limitation as it was filed 31 years after retirement. On merits, it R.S.A.No.3972 of 2006(O&M) -2- was stated that the appellant was suffering from 20% disability, but as the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad, rejected his claim for disability pension, the appellant was not entitled to receive any disability pension. The learned trial Court after considering the pleadings and the evidence adduced held that as the disease was neither attributed to nor aggravated by military service, the appellant was not entitled to any retiral benefits, much less disability pension. Aggrieved by this judgment, the appellant filed an appeal. The first appellate Court held that the note put up by the Commanding Office in the appellant's medical file clearly stated that the appellant's disability was aggravated by military service and, therefore, in view of regulation 173, the appellant was entitled to disability pension. The appellant's claim for disability pension was, however, confined to a period of 32 months preceding the filing of the suit. Counsel for the appellant submits that as the appellant was held entitled to disability pension, the first appellate Court should not have confined its benefit, to a period of 32 months before the filing of the suit. The appellant was illegally deprived of his disability pension for a period of 31 years and, therefore, was entitled to the entire amount. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that as the appellant's claim was highly belated, the first appellate Court did not commit any error while confining the disability pension to a period of 32 months. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. Admittedly, the appellant worked in the Indian Army from 01.01.1963 to 19.01.1967 on which date he was discharged. The only argument put forth by the appellant is that the first appellate court should not have confined the disability pension to a period of 32 months. Suffice R.S.A.No.3972 of 2006(O&M) -3- is to say that the appellant instituted the suit 31 years after his discharge. Such belated claims are generally declined except in cases relating to claims for pension. The first appellate Court, rightly confined the appellant's claim for disability pension to a period of 32 months preceding the filing of the suit. Consequently, as no substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. September 18, 2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE