Right To Equality Would Apply To A Man Who Has No Choice But To Accept A Standard Form Contract However Unfair It May Be : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has directed the grant of disability pension to a member of the Territorial Army by rejecting the reliance placed by the Union of India on a document signed by the appellant at the time of enrollment in the Territorial Army, whereby he had apparently waived his right to get enhanced pension.The Court said that the Army cannot rely on the said document in view of the unequal bargaining power between the parties. "Right to Equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India would also apply to a man who has no choice or rather no meaningful choice, but to give his assent to a contract or to sign on the dotted line in a prescribed or standard form or to accept a set of rules as part of the contract, however unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable a clause in that contract or form or rules may be. We find that the said observations rightly apply to the facts of the present case. Can it be said that the mighty Union of India and an ordinary soldier, who having fought for the country and retired from Regular Army, seeking re employment in the Territorial Army, have an equal bargaining power", the Court observed in the judgment. The bench of Justices LN Rao and BR Gavai was considering a civil appeal assailing the judgement dated October 10, 2018 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow by which it had dismissed the appellant's OA seeking grant of disability pension.The appellant had also challenged the order dated October 31, 2018 by which the AFT although allowed leave to appeal but framed a different question of law.While allowing the appeal in Pani Ram v. Union of India and Ors the Supreme Court observed,Factual BackgroundAfter serving for about 25 years in the Infantry of the Regular Army, the appellant got re-enrolled in the Territorial Army as a fulltime soldier on August 1, 2007. On April 5, 2009 the appellant was granted 10 days' part of annual leave from 15th April 2009 to 24th April 2009, to proceed to his home, which was at a distance of a few kilometers from the Unit where he was posted. When he was coming back on his scooter to rejoin his duty on April 24, 2009 he met with a serious accident which resulted in amputation of his right leg upto the knee. After he was discharged from Artificial Limb Centre on September 14, 2009 he was granted 28 days sick leave with the instruction to report back to the ALC. After the expiry of sick leave, he was re admitted to ALC on 11th October 2009. On 21st October 2009, the Medical Board was held at ALC which assessed the appellant's disability to be 80%. However, it could not give any opinion about the attributable aspect of the injury. On 07th November 2009, the appellant was discharged from ALC with instruction to report back to his Unit.To investigate into the circumstances under which the appellant sustained injury, a Court of Inquiry ("CoI") was held from 13th November 2009 onwards. The CoI found that the injury sustained by the appellant was attributable to military service and it was not due to his own negligence which was duly approved by the Station Commander on January 11, 2010. On 25th October 2010, a re-categorization Medical Board was held at ALC, which maintained appellant's disability at 80% and declared it as attributable to military service.Subsequently, based on the Invaliding Medical Board's opinion, the appellant on January 1, 2012 was invalided out of service with 80% disability which was attributable to military service.Proceedings Before Armed Forces TribunalIn accordance with Regulation No 292 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 the appellant approached the AFT for grant of disability pension. His claim was resisted by the respondents on the ground that the appellant, after discharging from mechanized infantry as a pensioner, was re-enrolled in 130 Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army), Ecological Task Force, Kumaon, on 1st August 2007 as an ExServiceman (ESM). The respondents further denied his claim stating that he was not entitled to any pensionary benefits in view of the letter of the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, dated 31st March 2008.Although the AFT held that the injury sustained by the appellant which resulted into 80% disability was found by the competent authority to be aggravated and attributable to the military service, but it rejected his claim on the ground that a separate scheme and service conditions have been created for the Members of Ecological Task Force ('ETF'), which was accepted by the appellant and as such, he was not entitled to disability pension.The appellant filed a MA for leave to appeal against order dated October 10, 2018 wherein he had framed the following question of law of general public importance:"Whether the terms and conditions of service of a member of the Territorial Army (TA) during the period of his embodiment with the T.A. will be governed by the statutory rules which provide for grant of 'disability pension' or by the...

Right To Equality Would Apply To A Man Who Has No Choice But To Accept A Standard Form Contract However Unfair It May Be : Supreme Court

Shruti Kakkar

Pani Ram v Union of India

Tags