In case of conflict between the two organs of the State and the Statutory Rules and Regulations, the latter would prevail: Supreme Court of India
The communication of the Union of India dated 31st 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 and 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. 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, the AFT was not justified in rejecting the claim of the appellant. Such an observation was made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court before Hon’ble Justice L. NAGESWARA RAO &amp; Hon’ble Justice B.R. GAVAI in the matter of PANI RAM vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2275 OF 2019]. The facts of the case were that after serving for about 25 years in Infantry of the Regular Army, the appellant got re-enrolled in the Territorial Army as a full-time soldier while serving in Territorial Army, on 5th April 2009, the appellant was granted 10 days’ part of annual leave from 15th April 2009 to 24th April 2009, to proceed to his home, which was at a distance of a few kilometers from the Unit. After availing of the said leave, when the appellant was coming back on his scooter to rejoin his duty, on 24th April 2009, he met with a serious accident. Consequently, his right leg was amputated. Thereafter, he was shifted to the Artificial Limb Centre at Pune. On 21st October 2009, the Medical Board was held at ALC which assessed the appellant’s disability to be 80%. Thereafter, a Court of Inquiry was held from 13th November 2009 onwards to investigate 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 appellate, therefore, approached the AFT For the grant of disability pension as is applicable to the personnel of the Regular Army, but the same was denied. Therefore, the present appeal is preferred by the appellate. 
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed 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.

Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that 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.

Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the present appeal. However, there was no order as to cost.
Click Here To Read The Judgment.
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed 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. 
Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that 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.

Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the present appeal. However, there was no order as to cost.
Click Here To Read The Judgment.
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that 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. 
Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the present appeal. However, there was no order as to cost.
Click Here To Read The Judgment.
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the present appeal. However, there was no order as to cost.
The appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 10th October 2018 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal Regional Bench Lucknowgrant of disability pension came to be dismissed. The vide which though the application for leave to appeal was After serving for about 25 years in Infantry of the in Territorial Army on 5th April 2009 the appellant was 24th April 2009 to proceed to his home which was at a distance of few kilometers from the Unit where he was coming back on his scooter to rejoin his duty on 24th 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 by helicopter to the Base Hospital at Lucknow where his ‘ALC’) at Pune. On 14th September 2009 he was discharged from ALC and was granted 28 days’ sick leave with the leave he was re­admitted to ALC on 11th October 2009. On assessed the appellant’s disability to be 80%. However it the injury. On 07th November 2009 the appellant was As per Regulation No. 520 of the Regulations for the Army 1987 a Court of Inquiry was held from 13th November 2009 onwards to had sustained injury. The CoI found that the injury sustained by the appellant was attributable to military ­ Respondent No. 3 on 11th January 2010. On 25th October 2010 a re­categorization Medical Board was held at ALC it as attributable to military service. Subsequently on the basis of the opinion of the Invaliding Medical Board hereinafter referred to as ‘IMB’) on 1st January 2012 the appellant was invalided out of service with 80% disability The appellant therefore approached AFT for grant of 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 1st appellant which resulted into 80% disability was found by 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 appellant and as such he was not entitled to disability judgment and order dated 10th October 2018 wherein the “Whether the terms and conditions of service of a member of the Territorial Army during the period of his embodiment with the T.A. will be governed by the statutory rules which provide for orders which deny the grant of the disability The AFT vide order dated 31st October 2018 though the aforementioned MOD letter dated 31.03.2008 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 separate terms and conditions were provided by it vide communication dated 31st 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 companies for 130 Infantry Battalion Pension entitlement of Territorial Army personnel earned for the earlier regular Army 12. The respondents also rely on a document titled 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 provisions of the Army Act 1950 and the rules or regulations made thereunder in the same manner he holds for the time being in the Territorial person in Territorial Army when holds the rank shall be regulations made thereunder equivalent to the same rank in 15. Chapter 5 of the Pension Regulations for the Army “292. The grant of pensionary awards to the the corresponding personnel of the Army except It could thus be seen that the grant of pensionary awards to the members of the Territorial Army shall be 17. Chapter 3 of the Pension Regulations for the Army 1961 deals with Disability Pensionary Awards in which “173. Primary Conditions for the grant of Unless otherwise specifically provided a 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 invalided out of service on account of disability which is attributable or aggravated by Military Service in non­battle other regulation been pointed out which deals with the 19. The communication of the Union of India dated 31st March 2008 vide which the President of India has two additional companies for 130 Infantry Battalion It is thus clear that the ETF is established as an 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 the disability pension. Specifically so when the Medical In case of conflict between what is stated in internal the Statutory Rules and Regulations would prevail. In that view of the matter we find that AFT was not justified in 22. The respondents have heavily relied on the document dated 30th August 2007 titled “Certificate”. No doubt that agreed to the condition that he will not be getting any enhanced pension for having been enrolled in this force pension and not disability pension. As already discussed Army Act 1948 and Regulation Nos. 292 and 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army 1961 would show that a pension. In any case in this respect even accepting that the Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited “89. We have a Constitution for our country Constitution and the laws”. The Constitution was social and economic justice. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees to all persons equality justice and conforms to the mandate of the great 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 bargains of this type. No court can visualize the 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 apply where a man has no choice or rather no meaningful choice but to give his assent to a of the contract however unfair unreasonable and rules may be. This principle however will not apply where the bargaining power of the contracting infrastructural organizations and with the State 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 As held by this Court a Right to Equality guaranteed rules as part of the contract however unfair unreasonable the country and retired from Regular Army seeking re­ employment in the Territorial Army have an equal 24. The present appeal is therefore allowed and the in O.A. No. 149 of 2018 is quashed and set aside. The pension to the appellant in accordance with the rules and regulations as are applicable to the Members of the Territorial Army with effect from 1st January 2012. The respondents are directed to clear arrears from 1st January