UNION OF INDIA Vs. SURINDER SINGH RATHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Bench, dismissing the Civil Special Appeal (Writ) filed by the appellants.

(3.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows : Respondent was employed as a Signal Man in the army on 5-1-1985. Sometime in October, 1991, he was admitted to the Military Hospital, Jodhpur for treatment of a disease called Maculopathy (RT) Eye. Subsequently he was referred to the Com mand Hospital in Pune for treatment and was later reverted back to the unit for normal duties with employability restrictions. The respondent continued to com plain of diminished vision and was re-admitted to the Military Hospital, Jodhpur. Since he was not responding to the treatment, he was referred to the Release Medi cal Board. On 1-5-1993, said Board completed the said investigation and recommended that the respondent be released from service in medical category and CEE (permanent) which is lower than the category "AYE" due to the aforesaid disease. The disability of the respondent was assessed as 30% for two years and considered as neither at tributable to nor aggravated by military service. The Boards proceedings were also approved by the competent authority on 17th May, 1993. The respondent was dis charged from service with effect from 31-7-1993 in terms of Rule 13 of Army Rules, 1954 (in short the Rules). Thereafter he was granted a sum of Rs.9,350/- and Rs.7,425/-on account of invalid gratuity and death cum retirement gratuity respec tively. But prayer of the respondent for grant of disability pension was rejected on the ground that the disease from which the respondent suffered was neither attribut able to nor aggravated by the military service. This information was based on the information of the Release Medical Board as per the provisions of Rule 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army (in short Pension Regulations) read with Rule 2 of Appendix II and Regulation 423 of Medical Service of Armed Force Regulations 1983. An appeal was preferred by the respondent which was forwarded to the Ministry of Defence. The appeal was rejected upholding the view of CCDA (Pension) as communicated to the respondent. Thereafter a writ petition was filed before the High Court which was numbered as Writ Petition No. 2597 of 1996. By order dated 16th February, 2005, the said Writ Petition was decided directing the present appellants to grant the respondent disability pension on the ground that the controversy was squarely covered by an earlier decision rendered by the High Court in SB Civil Writ No. 1083 of 2001. Order of learned Single Judge was challenged by filing a Civil Special appeal. By order dated 2-1-2006, the appeal was rejected. The present ap peal by special leave has been filed by the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the factual scenario has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench in the proper perspective. The report of the Medical Board clearly indicates that the disability was not attributable to military service and also it was not aggravated by service. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand Supplorted the orders of the High Court.