MAHAVIR SINGH NARWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner inter alia praying that the respondent be directed to grant the disability pension from the day he was discharged from service on 4th June, 1979.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was enrolled in the Indian Army in the Jat Regiment on 31st December, 1966. The petitioner became a victim of douodenal ulcers due to the stress and strain of military service and was placed in temporary low medical category CEE for six months. In view of the said ailment the petitioner applied for discharge from the army on compassionate grounds on 19th February, 1979 after completion of 12 years of service. It is the case of the petitioner that on 11th April, 1979 the petitioner was brought before the Release Medical Board . The Medical Board after examining him down graded to medical category CEE (physical) permanent. It also recommended that the disability was 30% aggravated by stress of military service. It further opined that longrvity of the petitioner has been reduced by one year. On 30th April, 1979 the Jat Regimental centre recommended grant of disability pension to the petitioner by letter dated 30th April, 1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that when the petitioner applied for discharge on 19th February, 1979 the petitioner was in temporary low medical category. The petitioner was later on examined by the Release medical board on 11th April, 1979 . He was found to be in permanent low medical category with 30% disability attributable to army service. The case of the petitioner was resubmitted for consideration to C.D.A. (P) Allahabad .

(3.) On the other hand Mr. Bansal learned counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that the petitioner was not entitled to disability pension as the petitioner sought discharge on compassionate ground on the ground that there was no male member available at home to look after the property and household affairs. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondent on Rule 173 of Disability Pension Regulations which is to the following effect: