2021 INSC 0864
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2275 OF 2019
PANI RAM            ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.       ...RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. The   appeal   challenges   the   judgment   and   order   dated
10 th
  October   2018   passed   by   the   Armed   Forces   Tribunal,
Regional   Bench,   Lucknow   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “AFT”),
vide which  the O.A. No. 149 of 2018 filed by the appellant  for
grant   of   disability   pension   came   to   be   dismissed.   The
appellant   also   challenges   the   order   dated   31 st
  October   2018
passed   in   M.A.   No.   1839   of   2018   in   O.A.   No.   149   of   2018,
vide   which   though,   the   application   for   leave   to   appeal   was
allowed, but the AFT framed a different question of law.
1

2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeal are as
under:
After   serving   for   about   25   years   in   Infantry   of   the
Regular Army, the appellant got re­enrolled in the Territorial
Army as a full­time soldier on 1 st
 August 2007. While serving
in   Territorial   Army,   on   5 th
  April   2009,   the   appellant   was
granted 10 days’ part of annual leave from 15 th
 April 2009 to
24 th
  April   2009,   to   proceed   to   his   home,   which   was   at   a
distance   of   few   kilometers   from   the   Unit   where   he   was
posted. After availing the said leave, when the appellant was
coming   back   on   his   scooter   to   rejoin   his   duty,   on   24 th
  April
2009, he met with a serious accident. Initially, the appellant
was   admitted   to   the   District   Hospital,   Pithoragarh   from
where   he   was   shifted   to   the   161   Military   Hospital   at
Pithoragarh. On 25 th
 April 2009, the appellant was evacuated
by   helicopter   to   the   Base   Hospital   at   Lucknow,   where   his
right   leg   was   amputated   up   to   the   knee.   Thereafter,   he   was
shifted to the Artificial Limb  Centre  (hereinafter referred to as
‘ALC’)   at   Pune.   On   14 th
  September   2009,   he   was   discharged
from   ALC   and   was   granted   28   days’   sick   leave   with   the
2

instruction to report back to the ALC. After the expiry of sick
leave,   he   was   re­admitted   to   ALC   on   11 th
  October   2009.   On
21 st
 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 attributability aspect of
the   injury.   On   07 th
  November   2009,   the   appellant   was
discharged   from   ALC   with   instruction   to   report   back   to   his
Unit . 
3. As   per   Regulation   No.   520   of   the   Regulations   for   the
Army,   1987,   a   Court   of   Inquiry   (hereinafter   referred   to   as
“CoI”),   was   held   from   13 th
  November   2009   onwards   to
investigate into the circumstances under which the appellant
had   sustained   injury.   The   CoI   found   that   the   injury
sustained   by   the   appellant   was   attributable   to   military
service   and   it   was   not   due   to   his   own   negligence.   The   said
finding of CoI was duly approved by the Station Commander
­   Respondent   No.   3,   on   11 th
  January   2010.   On   25 th
  October
2010,   a   re­categorization   Medical   Board   was   held   at   ALC,
which maintained appellant’s disability at 80% and declared
it   as   attributable   to   military   service.   Subsequently,   on   the
3

basis   of   the   opinion   of   the   Invaliding   Medical   Board
(hereinafter   referred   to   as   ‘IMB’),   on   1 st
  January   2012,   the
appellant   was   invalided   out   of   service   with   80%   disability
which was attributable to military service. 
4. The   appellant,   therefore,   approached   AFT   for   grant   of
disability pension as is applicable to the personnel of Regular
Army, in accordance with Regulation No. 292 of the Pension
Regulations   for   the   Army,   1961.   The   claim   of   the   appellant
was   resisted   by   the   respondents   on   the   ground   that   the
appellant,   after   discharging   from   mechanized   infantry   as   a
pensioner,   was   re­enrolled   in   130   Infantry   Battalion
(Territorial   Army),   Ecological   Task   Force,   Kumaon,   on   1 st
August   2007   as   an   Ex­Serviceman   (ESM).   The   claim   of   the
appellant has been denied by the  respondents  on the ground
that the appellant was not entitled to any pensionary benefits
in   view   of   the   letter   of   the   Government   of   India,   Ministry   of
Defence, dated 31 st
 March 2008.
5. The   AFT   though   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
4

the military service, rejected the claim of the appellant on the
ground   that   a   separate   scheme   and   service   conditions   have
been   created   for   the   Members   of   Ecological   Task   Force
(hereinafter   referred to  as ‘ETF’), which  was accepted  by  the
appellant   and   as   such,   he   was   not   entitled   to   disability
pension. 
6. The appellant thereafter  filed M.A. No. 1839 of 2018 in
O.A. No. 149 of 2018 for grant of leave to appeal against the
judgment   and   order   dated   10 th
  October   2018,   wherein   the
appellant 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   departmental
orders   which   deny   the   grant   of   the   disability
pension   to   the   members   of   a   particular   unit   of   the
T.A. to which such individual belongs.”
7. The   AFT   vide   order   dated   31 st
  October   2018   though,
allowed the application for grant of leave to appeal, framed a
different question of law, as under:
“Whether   the   members   of   Ecological   Task   Force   of
Territorial   Army   are   entitled   to   pensionary   benefits
5

at par with the members of regular Army in spite of
the   aforementioned   MOD   letter   dated   31.03.2008
whereby pensionary benefits have been denied.”
8. The said order dated 31 st
  October 2018, passed by AFT
is also a subject matter of challenge in the present appeal.
9. We   have   heard   Shri   Siddhartha   Iyer,   learned   Counsel
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   and   Shri   Vikramjit
Banerjee,   learned   Additional   Solicitor   General,   appearing   on
behalf of the respondent­Union of India. 
10. It is the specific case of respondent­Union of India that
separate   terms   and   conditions   were   provided   by   it   vide
communication   dated   31 st
  March   2008,   which   provides   that
the   members   of   ETF   would   not   be   entitled   for   disability
pension.   Vide   the   said   communication,   the   Government   of
India   has   communicated   to   the   Chief   of   Army   Staff,   the
sanction   of   the   President   of   India   for   raising   two   additional
companies   for   130   Infantry   Battalion   (Territorial   Army)
Ecological under Rule 33 of Territorial Army Act, Rules 1948.
11. The   respondents   rely   on   Clause   (iv)   of   Sub­Para   (d)   of
Para 1 of the said communication dated 31 st
 March 2008 :
6

“(iv)   Pension   entitlement   of   Territorial   Army
personnel   earned   for   the   earlier   regular   Army
Service,   will   remain   untouched   and   will   be   ignored
in fixing their pay and allowances.”
12. The   respondents   also   rely   on   a   document   titled
“Certificate” dated 30 th
  August 2007, signed by the appellant
wherein under condition (f), it is stated thus : 
“(f) That, I will not be getting any enhance pension
for having been enrolled in this force.”
13. It will be relevant to refer to sub­section (1) of Section 9
of the Territorial Army Act, 1948 :
“Sec. 9. Application of the Army Act, 1950.
(1)   Every   officer,   when   doing   duty   as   such   officer,
and   every   enrolled   person   when   called   out   or
embodied   or   attached   to   the   Regular   Army],   shall,
subject   to   such   adaptations   and   modifications   as
may be made therein by the Central Government by
notification in the Official Gazette, be subject to the
provisions   of   the   Army   Act,   1950,   and   the   rules   or
regulations   made   thereunder   in   the   same   manner
and to the same extent as if such officer or enrolled
person   held the  same  rank  in  the  Regular  Army  as
he   holds   for   the   time   being   in   the   Territorial
Army ..”
14. It could thus be seen that every such officer or enrolled
person   in   Territorial   Army   when   holds   the   rank,   shall   be
subject to the provisions of Army Act, 1950 and the rules or
7

regulations made thereunder, equivalent to the same rank in
the Regular Army. 
15. Chapter   5   of   the   Pension   Regulations   for   the   Army,
1961 deals with  Territorial  Army. The  Regulation No.  292 of
the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 read thus:
“292.   The   grant   of   pensionary   awards   to   the
members   of   the   Territorial   Army   shall   be   governed
by the same general regulations as are applicable to
the   corresponding   personnel   of   the   Army   except
where   they   are   inconsistent   with   the   provisions   of
regulations in this Chapter”
16. It   could   thus   be   seen   that   the   grant   of   pensionary
awards   to   the   members   of   the   Territorial   Army   shall   be
governed by the same rules and regulations as are applicable
to the corresponding persons of the Army except where they
are inconsistent with the provisions of regulations in the said
chapter. 
17. Chapter   3   of   the   Pension   Regulations   for   the   Army,
1961,   deals   with   Disability   Pensionary   Awards,   in   which
Regulation No. 173 reads thus: 
“ 173.   Primary   Conditions   for   the   grant   of
Disability Pension
8

Unless   otherwise   specifically   provided   a   disability
pension  consisting  of service element and disability
element   may   be   granted   to   an   individual   who   is
invalided   out   of   service   on   account   of   a   disability
which   is   attributable   to   or   aggravated   by   military
service in non­battle casualty and is assessed at 20
per cent or over.”
18. The perusal thereof will reveal that an individual who is
invalided   out   of   service   on   account   of   disability,   which   is
attributable   or   aggravated   by   Military   Service   in   non­battle
casualty   and   is   assessed   20%   or   more,   would   be   entitled   to
disability   pension.   The   respondents   are   not   in   a   position   to
point   out   any   rules   or   regulations,   which   can   be   said   to   be
inconsistent with Regulation No. 292 or 173, neither has any
other   regulation   been   pointed   out,   which   deals   with   the
terms and conditions of service of ETF.
19. The   communication   of   the   Union   of   India   dated
31 st
  March   2008,   vide   which   the   President   of   India   has
granted sanction, itself reveals that the sanction is for raising
two   additional   companies   for   130   Infantry   Battalion
(Territorial Army) Ecological. 
9

20. It   is   thus   clear   that   the   ETF   is   established   as   an
additional   company   for   130   Infantry   Battalion   of   Territorial
Army.   It   is   not   in   dispute   that   the   other   officers   or   enrolled
persons   working   in   the   Territorial   Army   are   entitled   to
disability   pension   under   Regulation   No.   173   read   with
Regulation   No.   292   of   Pension   Regulations   for   the   Army,
1961.   When   the   appellant   is   enrolled   as   a   member   of   ETF
which   is   a   company   for   130   Infantry   Battalion   (Territorial
Army), we see no reason as to why the appellant was denied
the   disability   pension.   Specifically   so,   when   the   Medical
Board   and   COI   have   found   that   the   injury   sustained   by   the
appellant was attributable to  the  Military  Service and it was
not due to his own negligence. 
21. In   case   of   conflict   between   what   is   stated   in   internal
communication between the two organs of the State and the
Statutory   Rules  and   Regulations,  it   is  needless   to   state  that
the   Statutory   Rules   and   Regulations   would   prevail.   In   that
view   of   the   matter,   we   find   that   AFT   was   not   justified   in
rejecting the claim of the appellant. 
10

22. The   respondents   have   heavily   relied   on   the   document
dated   30 th
  August   2007,   titled   “Certificate”.     No   doubt   that
the said document is signed by the appellant, wherein he had
agreed   to   the   condition   that   he   will   not   be   getting   any
enhanced   pension   for   having   been   enrolled   in   this   force.
Firstly, we find that the said document deals with enhanced
pension   and   not   disability   pension.     As   already   discussed
hereinabove, a conjoint reading of Section 9 of the Territorial
Army   Act,   1948   and   Regulation   Nos.   292   and   173   of   the
Pension  Regulations   for   the   Army,   1961,   would   show   that   a
member of the Territorial Army would be entitled to disability
pension. In any case, in this respect, even accepting that the
appellant has signed such a document, it will be relevant to
refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of
Central   Inland   Water   Transport   Corporation   Limited
and Another v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Another 1
  :
“ 89.   ……We   have   a   Constitution   for   our   country.
Our   judges   are   bound   by   their   oath   to   “uphold   the
Constitution   and   the   laws”.   The   Constitution   was
enacted  to   secure   to  all   the   citizens  of   this   country
social   and   economic   justice.   Article   14   of   the
Constitution   guarantees   to   all   persons   equality
1   (1986) 3 SCC 156
11

before the law and the equal protection of the laws.
The  principle  deducible  from   the   above  discussions
on this part of the case is in consonance with right
and reason, intended to secure social and economic
justice   and   conforms   to   the   mandate   of   the   great
equality   clause   in   Article   14.   This   principle   is   that
the   courts   will   not   enforce   and   will,   when   called
upon   to   do   so,   strike   down   an   unfair   and
unreasonable   contract,   or   an   unfair   and
unreasonable   clause   in   a   contract,   entered   into
between   parties   who   are   not   equal   in   bargaining
power.   It  is  difficult   to   give   an  exhaustive  list   of  all
bargains   of   this   type.   No   court   can   visualize   the
different situations which can arise in the affairs of
men.   One   can   only   attempt   to   give   some
illustrations.   For   instance,   the   above   principle   will
apply   where   the   inequality   of   bargaining   power   is
the   result   of   the   great   disparity   in   the   economic
strength   of   the   contracting   parties.   It   will   apply
where the inequality is the result of circumstances,
whether   of the  creation  of the  parties  or  not. It will
apply to situations in which the weaker party is in a
position in which he can obtain goods or services or
means of livelihood only upon the terms imposed by
the   stronger   party   or   go   without   them.   It   will   also
apply   where   a   man   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. This principle, however, will not apply
where   the   bargaining   power   of   the   contracting
parties is equal or almost equal. This principle may
not   apply   where   both   parties   are   businessmen   and
the contract is a commercial transaction. In today's
complex   world   of   giant   corporations   with   their   vast
infrastructural   organizations   and   with   the   State
through  its   instrumentalities   and  agencies   entering
into almost every branch of industry and commerce,
12

there   can   be   myriad   situations   which   result   in
unfair   and   unreasonable   bargains   between   parties
possessing   wholly   disproportionate   and   unequal
bargaining   power.   These   cases   can   neither   be
enumerated   nor   fully   illustrated.   The   court   must
judge   each   case   on   its   own   facts   and
circumstances.”
23.   As   held   by   this   Court,   a   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.     We   are   therefore   of   the   considered   view
that the reliance placed on the said document would also be
of no assistance to the case of the respondents.  
13

24. The   present   appeal   is   therefore   allowed   and   the
judgment and order dated 10 th
  October, 2018 passed by AFT
in   O.A.   No.   149   of   2018   is   quashed   and   set   aside.     The
question of law framed by AFT in its order dated 31 st
 October
2018, already stands answered in view of our finding given in
para (21).
25. The   respondents   herein   are   directed   to   grant   disability
pension   to   the   appellant   in   accordance   with   the   rules   and
regulations   as   are   applicable   to   the   Members   of   the
Territorial   Army   with   effect   from   1 st
  January   2012.   The
respondents   are   directed   to   clear   arrears   from   1 st
  January
2012   within   a   period   of   three   months   from   the   date   of   this
judgment with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 
26. The   appeal   is   allowed   in   the   above   terms.   All   pending
applications shall stand disposed of.  No order as to costs. 
……....….......................J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
..…....….......................J.
     [B.R. GAVAI]
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 17, 2021.
14