UNION OF INDIA Vs. AMRIK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case has been called out several times over a number of days, however, none has appeared on behalf of the respondent despite the fact that the respondent has been duly served. In the peculiar facts of this case, we have proceeded to hear the matter in the absence of any representation on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) THE respondent was inducted into the Army as a Sepoy on 09.03.1988. He received a gun shot injury during operation 'Rakshak' in the Kargil Sector in 1996. Due to the above injury, the respondent was placed in Low Medical Category CEE (Temporary) with effect from 26.12.1996 for a period of six months. On 26.06.1997, he was placed in permanent Low Medical Category CEE for two years. The respondent continued to serve the Army for a period of seven years, whereafter, he sought The Release Medical Board assessed the disability of the respondent at 20% for life. Based on the aforesaid factual position, the request made by the respondent, for discharge from Army service on compassionate ground, was acceded to. The respondent was allowed to retire from service, on 31.10.2004. It is not a matter of dispute, that the respondent continued to discharge his duties, at the same position and rank, which he held, when he suffered the gun shot injury in 1996. It is not as if the circumstances required him, on account of his medical condition, to be shifted to some other post, on account of his low medical categorisation. On account of the aforesaid factual position, as also, on account of the fact that the respondent had been discharged from Army service on compassionate ground, at his own request, he was denied disability pension. We are satisfied that the above denial of disability pension to the respondent, was justified in the facts and circumstances of this case.

(3.) IN view of the factual/legal position recorded above, we are satisfied that it would not be proper to deprive the respondent of the disability component of pension allowed to him by the impugned order, specially because the authorities have themselves recognised that persons similarly situated as the appellant would also be entitled to disability pension. The instant civil appeal is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. This order shall not be treated as a precedent for persons who retired before the date of enforcement of the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission.