AFT orders war injury pension to retired Army major

The Chandigarh bench of Armed Forces Tribunal has directed the Centre to pay retired Major Jasbeer Singh, who lost a leg and an eye during cleaning of mine fields on China border in Sikkim in 1966, arrears of war injury pension from the date of his discharge from the duty.

The bench comprising judicial member Justice M S Chauhan and administrative member Lt General Munish Sibal also imposed a cost of Rs 30,000 on the Ministry of Defence for forcing the Sena medal winner to avoidable litigation.

Major Singh, who is now in his 70s, lost a leg and an eye in a mine blast while clearing mine fields in the volatile operational area on China Border on July 11, 1966. In this incident, his right foot - up to ankle - was blown off and his left eye was ripped open.

He continued to serve the nation but because of further aggravation, he was invalided out on September 18, 1978 with 100 per cent disability for life.

Instead of war injury pension, he was given disability pension. However, because of his concerted efforts with his representations, the Centre agreed to give him war injury pension from July 5, 2013, instead of the date when he was invalided out.

"We are constrained to observe that the applicant is entitled to the entire arrears of war injury pension and the respondents have approached the issue of release of the arrears to him in a stone-hearted and headstrong fashion," the bench observed.

"The situation in which the applicant has been placed by his sincere discharge of his duty towards his mother land, that is 100 per cent disablement on account of loss of a leg and an eye while clearing the mines which were laid to defend our borders against the enemy, deserved an empathetic and humane approach," it said in the order.

The Centre pleaded that the arrears should be restricted to three years as applicant approached the tribunal late.

"The submission has only flabbergasted us. The arrears now being claimed by applicant admittedly fell due to him immediately on his invalidation.

But the bench, in its April 16 order, said: "It is improper to say the least on the part of the Union of India to plead the bar of limitation against such a claim of a soldier who would have better died than survive with 100 per cent disability earned by him while serving the nation."