Archive · 28 Jul 2026
Delhi High Court Upholds Compensation for Army Man
Sudarshan Pareek, an employee of the Army, was already 65% disabled before a road accident in 2010 left him with 85% permanent disability.
The Army argued that he should not get compensation because he was already receiving benefits for his pre-existing disability.
However, the Delhi High Court ruled that a pre-existing disability does not prevent someone from claiming compensation for new injuries.
The court ordered the Army to pay Pareek Rs 5.23 lakh in compensation.
The court also criticized the Army for delaying the appeal process without a good reason.
Sudarshan Pareek, an Army employee, suffered 85% permanent disability in a road accident in 2010.
He was already 65% disabled before the accident and was receiving benefits for it.
The Army argued that his pre-existing disability should bar him from receiving additional compensation.
The Delhi High Court rejected the Army's argument, stating that pre-existing disability does not prevent compensation for new injuries.
The court ordered the Army to pay Pareek Rs 5.23 lakh in compensation and criticized the Army for delaying the appeal process.
- Who
- Sudarshan Pareek, an employee of the Commandant, 510 Army Base Workshop
- What
- The Delhi High Court upheld an order directing the Army to pay Rs 5.23 lakh to Pareek for 85% permanent disability sustained in a road accident.
- When
- The accident occurred on December 12, 2010. The high court order was issued on July 24, 2013.
- Where
- The incident occurred while Pareek was traveling from Meerut Cantonment to Chandigarh. The case was heard in the Delhi High Court.
- Why
- The court ruled that a pre-existing disability does not prevent an employee from claiming compensation for injuries sustained in a subsequent accident.
Employee's Perspective
Army Authorities' Perspective
Pre-existing Disability and Compensation
Employee's Perspective
The employee argues that a pre-existing disability should not bar him from receiving compensation for injuries sustained in a subsequent accident.
Army Authorities' Perspective
The Army authorities claim that the employee was already receiving benefits for a pre-existing 65% disability, making him ineligible for further compensation.
Delay in Filing Appeal
Employee's Perspective
The employee highlights the prolonged delay by the Army authorities in filing the appeal, suggesting negligence.
Army Authorities' Perspective
The Army authorities do not provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, which the court finds inadequate.
- Employee Name
- Sudarshan Pareek
- Date of Accident
- December 12, 2010
- Percentage of Disability Before Accident
- 65%
- Percentage of Disability After Accident
- 85%
- Compensation Amount
- Rs 5.23 lakh
- Date of Compensation Order
- May 2013
- Date of High Court Order
- July 24, 2013
- Court's Decision
- Dismissed the appeal, ordered full compensation to be released to Pareek