R. NARAYANAN versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

R. NARAYANAN versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

The words 'permanently incapacitated' in clause 3(e) of the Scheme refer to the permanent nature of incapacitation and not its totality. Therefore, permanent loss of vision in one eye as certified by government doctors and recommended by the State Government authorities meets the eligibility criteria for pension....

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: R. Narayanan; Respondent: Union of India
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 October 1989
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave Against Dismissal of Writ Petition and Writ Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, Interpretation of 'permanent Incapacitation', Eligibility for Government Pension, Proof Requirements for Historic Injury
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Social Welfare Law Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme Interpretation of 'permanent Incapacitation' Eligibility for Government Pension Proof Requirements for Historic Injury

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R. Narayanan

Appellant

Union of India

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave Against Dismissal of Writ Petition and Writ Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permanent loss of vision in one eye amounts to 'permanent incapacitation' under Para 4, Cl. 3(e) of the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme
  2. 2 Whether pension can be denied for want of archival documentary evidence from the relevant period

Ratio Decidendi

The words 'permanently incapacitated' in clause 3(e) of the Scheme refer to the permanent nature of incapacitation and not its totality. Therefore, permanent loss of vision in one eye as certified by government doctors and recommended by the State Government authorities meets the eligibility criteria for pension. Denial of pension on grounds that only total (not partial) incapacitation is covered, or that official records from 40 years ago are absent, is unjustified.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Quash the impugned order of the respondents dated 30.4.1985
  • Set aside the judgment of the High Court