Chandigarh, August 26
Over 11 years after injuries sustained during training at the Indian Military Academy (IMA) left him completely paralysed the chest downwards, ex-cadet Navin Gulia was awarded benefits due and consequential relief yesterday.
Disposing of his petition, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Mr Justice Mukul Mudgal and Mr Justice S.R. Bhatt directed the Centre to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the compensation of Rs 1.16 lakh awarded to him earlier.
The court also imposed costs of Rs 25,000 on the Army for forcing a disabled man into litigation.
In an earlier hearing, the court had ruled that Mr Gulia be paid the stipend applicable for the duration of his stay at the IMA from admission till the time he was discharged.
“The court observed during proceedings that despite the IMA recommending the matter several times, the government had refused to release the money, making a disabled and paralysed person run from pillar to post and approach the court”, cadet’s counsel Jyoti Singh said.
“The court had observed that mere payment of stipend did not end the chapter as Mr Gulia had to be compensated for the harassment caused to him”, she added.
During an obstacle course competition at the IMA, Mr Gulia had got seriously injured, which left him completely paralysed chest downwards.
The incident occurred in April 1995, about a month before he was scheduled to get his commission.
On account of this, he remained in hospital till July 1997, when he was released from the Army on medical grounds.
The IMA had put up the case to the Army Headquarters several times between 1998 and 2000, stating that he should be paid stipend for two years according to Army’s policy.
The IMA authorities had written that Army Headquarters were delaying the release of the money unnecessarily. The Army Headquarters had stated that stipend should be paid, but no money was released for the next six years. He had filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court in 2003 and initially, the Army had taken the stand that the policy was silent on such cases.
When the petitioner had brought on record letters by the Army Headquarters, showing confirmation for payment in such cases, the Army changed its stand and stated that the rules were ambiguous.
The Army had contended that the Army Headquarters had no objection, but the Controller of Defence Accounts was turning down the claim in the absence of sanction from the Ministry of Defence.
It had also been stated that Mr Gulia was held on supernumerary strength, but only for accounting purposes as a piece of paper.
The court had summoned the Controller of Defence Accounts to explain on what basis had they meted out this treatment to a disabled person.
