VED PARKASH CHAWLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Writ Petition whereby the petitionerseeks a direction to the respondents to pay disability pension at the rate of 60% tohim w.e.f. 9/05/1988 for a period of 10 years as assessed by the Re-survey MedicalBoard.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition are as under:

(3.) On 9/05/1988 a Re-survey Medical Board again examined the petitionerfor re-assessment of his disability. After examining the petitioner the Board cameto the conclusion that the petitioner should be paid disability pension at the rateof 60%. The matter was, however, referred to CCDA (Pensions) Allahabad forapproval of the recommendation of the Board. The CCDA (Pensions) inconsultation with the Medical Advisor attached with it, came to the conclusionthat disability pension should be admissible to the petitioner at the rate of 30%. Inthis regard a communication dated 29/04/1989 was sent to the petitioner. Thepetitioner not being satisfied with the decision of the CCDA preferred an appealto the Government of India, Ministry of Defence. The Government of India byits letter dated 27/07/1992 decided that the disability of the petitioner, whichwas attributable to military services, be deemed to be enhanced as assessed bythe Re-survey Medical Board held on 9/05/1988. Having decided in thismanner, the letter, however, stated that the disability pension rate be treated as30% for a period of 10 years. There appears to be an apparent mistake inmentioning the rate of disability pension in the letter of the Government of India.Having said that the disability pension be deemed to be enhanced as assessed bythe Re-survey Medical Board held on 9/05/1988, the petitioner would have beenentitled to disability pension at the rate of 60% as was recommended by the Resurvey Medical Board. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, while emphasisingthis aspect of the matter, also contended that the action of the CCDA in acceptingthe disability of the petitioner as 30% was arbitrary and it could not differ withthe recommendations of the Re-survey Medical Board without having the petitioner examined from a higher medical authority. He supported his contentions bythe decision of the Supreme Court in Ex.Sapper Mohinder Singh v. Union of indiabeing Civil Appeal No. 164/1993 (decided on 14/01/1993). In thisconnection, he laid emphasis on following observations of the Supreme Court :