Capt. Manjinder Singh Bhinder of 61st Cavalry saved 150 lives in Delhi’s Uphaar Cinema fire in 1997 before perishing in the blaze along with his wife and son. The Army declared his death attributable to military service because according to the charter of service, a soldier is expected to be on duty 24 hours a day and respond to calls of distress or emergent situations even on leave. The Accounts branch of the Army however disagreed with the findings and declared the death as “not attributable to service.”
His dejected parents were forced to resort to litigation to get his benefits released. In its reply to the Delhi High Court, the government said, “He had only gone to see the movie in the Uphaar Cinema hall.... even if the late Capt. had tried to rescue civilians in the tragedy, it cannot be said that he was on duty just because he took command for rescue and lost his life.” The Bench rejected the government’s contention and ordered the release of his benefits with 9 per cent interest. But many more are not so lucky.
Lawyer Navdeep Singh has drawn attention to this malaise within the Defence accounts system by documenting 19 cases that expose an “insensitive machinery” that has repeatedly resorted to appeals against the orders of constitutional courts and the Armed Forces Tribunals and sometimes even the Army Chief to deny benefits to hundreds of disabled veterans and war widows.
Mr. Singh’s study ‘Maimed by the System’, released by Gen. (retd.) V.P. Malik this week, exposes some of the “frivolous” reasons that have forced disabled soldiers with little means to approach the Supreme Court for relief. It also calls on the government to discuss key decisions with stakeholders.
The case of Naik Suraj Bhan, who served extensively in counter insurgency operations, but fell and hurt his head while posted in a peace station, is illuminating. He developed a psychiatric disorder and was discharged from service. The Release Medical Board held that his disability was “aggravated by military service” that entitled him to disability pension and other benefits. The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions), however, rejected this and Mr. Bhan approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court for relief.
The court directed the government to release his benefits and also recorded that ‘psychosis’ was listed in the pension regulations as a disability due to stress and strain of service. His condition meanwhile deteriorated and he was chained by villagers to a bedpost. The Army’s Regimental Records Office filed an appeal before a Division Bench, which dismissed the appeal. Even then, benefits were not released and three years later the order was challenged in the Supreme Court. In August 2013, the Court threw out the appeal filed by the government against Mr. Bhan.
