RAJENDER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy in the present writ petition is the entitlement of the petitioner to benefits of the Army Group Insurance Fund. The respondents deny it to him on the ground that he proceeded on discharge from service after completion of term of engagement.

(2.) The brief facts relevant for the purpose of this judgment are that the petitioner was enrolled in the Army on 17.03.1982. It is not in dispute that he served, during his military career, in several areas. He was in the field area in Kargil during 2003-2005. Whilst in exercise in Lathi (field area) and during the exercise, he developed primary hypertension. He was medically examined and was placed in low medical category P2 (T-24) w.e.f. 04.01.2008 due to Primary Hypertension. He was medically examined and placed in medical category SHAPE-1 H1, A1, P2 E1 according to assessment of the Medical Board held on 12.12.2008. The petitioner was to complete the normal tenure of his service of 28 years, in March 2010. He was granted two years' extension of service for the period 17.03.2010 to 16.03.2012, by order dated 13.12.2008. However, before his extended tenure could commence, the previous order (of 13.12.2008) granting it, was cancelled, by order dated 12.01.2010. The cancellation of this order resulted in the denial of extension, and the petitioner was consequently discharged from service on 31.03.2010. The petitioner moved the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) by filing OA 323/2011 for disability pension and grant of Army Group Insurance (AGI) benefit.

(3.) On 12.03.2012, the petitioner was medically re-examined in the Army Base hospital; the report stated, inter alia, that "Primary hypertension is an idiopathic disorder with known familial clustering and no known service related causative factors hence not conceded as not attributable to service.." and further that "In view of the association of the ID with service in field CI/OPs area, ID is conceded as aggravated by military service." On 19.03.2012, the petitioner was granted disability pension @ 30%, despite his claim for rounding off @ 50%. In this background, the petitioner sought Army Group Insurance benefits, by representation to the Insurance scheme, which turned down the request on 21.05.2012. On 01.10.2012, he filed a writ petition before this court, for the 50% pension benefit and grant of AGI scheme benefit. This petition was withdrawn on 23.11.2012 with liberty to seek same relief. He has, therefore, approached this Court.