Rajasthan

StateCommission

CC/32/2016

Harpal Singh Yadav s/o Risedent Yadav Krishi Farm - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Union of India Through Secretary - Opp.Party(s)

R.S. Bhadoria

16 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

COMPLAINT CASE NO: 32/2016

 

Ex.Hav. /APTC Harpal Singh Yadav r/o Yadav Krishi Farm, 60 feet Road, PO Tulia Distt. Alwar.

 

Vs.

 

Union of India through the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi & ors.

 

 

Date of Order 16.5.2016

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr. R.S.Bhadoria counsel for the complainant

 

 

 

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This complaint has been filed on the facts that the complainant was enrolled in the army on 15.7.1954 and was discharged on 15.7.1969 on medical grounds as he has suffered serious back bone injury. His disability was assessed 20% for two years i.e. upto 23.3.1971 and he was allowed disability pension. The re-survey medical board was held on 17.3.1971 which assessed his disability as 20% for ten years and he was allowed disability pension till 17.3.1981. Thereafter no review medical board was arranged but applicant continued to avail disability pension till September 1992. On audit objection the order was passed for the recovery of excess amount. The complainant approached the Rajasthan High Court by way of writ petition which was transferred to Armed Forces Tribunal Regional Bench,Jaipur and Armed Forces Tribunal allowed disability pension to the applicant from 18.3.1981 with 6% interest and also gave liberty to the respondents to arrange review medical board for the purpose of re-assessing the percentage of disability suffered by the applicant. On 31.3.2012 the medical board has re-assessed the disability of the complainant as 30% for life and the complainant applied for

3

 

benefits by way of rounding off his disability pension from 30% to 50%. The further contention of the complainant is that the concerned officer Lt.Col.C.Chakrabarti was having less professional knowledge. He acted in disobedience of directions issued by the authorities, informations were not supplied to him and it was held that as the complainant was discharged, he is not entitled for rounding off benefits. Aggrieved from this action this complaint has been filed and the contention of the complainant is that he is entitled for rounding off and this is deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.

 

Heard the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the complaint as well as photo copies of documents submitted alongwith the complaint.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that Armed Forces Tribunal Regional Bench,Jaipur vide its order dated 14.5.2010 has set aside the order passed against the complainant and has allowed disability pension to the complainant w.e.f. 18.3.1981. Now, the case of the complainant is that he is entitled for rounding off his disability pension from 30% to 50% as his disability is re-assessed as 30% and his contention is that concerned authority Mr.Chakrabarti is not having professional

4

 

knowledge or his RTI applications have not been processed. Lack of professional knowledge cannot be said to be a deficiency in service and further more if complainant is having any grievance as regard to application under RTI, he can move before the appropriate court.

 

The only contention which has been set up in the complaint is that he has been disallowed pension on the ground that he has been discharged from service and not invalided out. If a particular provision is not interpreted in favour of the complainant this cannot be said to be deficiency in service. If the complainant is aggrieved by any adverse order which has been passed by the authorities against him, he can move before the competent court but there seems to be no deficiency of service on the face of it as pleaded by the complainant and as no deficiency of service has been shown by the complainant, the complainant has no cause of action before this Commission and complaint is liable to be rejected and hence,rejected.

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

nm