CHANDIGARH: The Supreme Court (SC) has yet again made strong observations on the tendency of the ministry of defence (MoD) of filing appeals by ‘default’ against old pensioners.
While dealing with an appeal filed by the MoD and the Army against pension to a disabled jawan, Havildar Dhanbir Singh of the Rajputana Rifles, who was granted relief by the Chandigarh Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), the top court has asked the authorities to “introspect and find out where the fault lies within themselves”. The bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S Oka observed that the AFT had granted the legitimate relief of disability pension to the soldier based on law laid down by the SC, that too after a wait of two decades after his retirement, and yet an appeal was filed by the authorities without examining whether it was a fit case to challenge or not.
In 2018, another bench of the apex court comprising Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta in a similar case had imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on the MoD observing that the “couldn’t-care-less and insouciant attitude of the Union of India had gone too far” with appeals being filed in matters already settled by SC. It had recorded that “frivolous and infructuous” appeals by the ministry were burdening the court and financially harming litigants with such “misadventures”.
In 2015, then Union defence minister, Manohar Parrikar, had constituted a high-level committee of experts on directions of the Prime Minister to curb litigation initiated by MoD and defence services. The committee, which comprised former Adjutant General Lt Gen Mukesh Sabharwal, Punjab and Haryana high court lawyer Major Navdeep Singh and war disabled Major D P Singh, and two other members, had passed scathing observations against the “ego-fuelled” litigation pursued by MoD against soldiers, disabled veterans and widows. It had directed a moratorium on filing appeals in all matters which were covered by judgments of high courts and SC.
Sources say that while orders were issued giving effect to observations of the committee and it was directed that no appeal shall be filed unless specifically approved by a joint secretary-level officer, yet applications for “leave to appeal” directly to the Supreme Court were constantly being filed by multiple agencies such as military regimental records offices, contrary to directions of the defence minister. As per law, direct appeals from AFT orders to the SC can only be filed in “matters of general public importance” which affect the society at large and not in individual cases, but there was no check on lower-level authorities which were flooding judicial forums with litigation.
