EX-SEP PAWAN KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Ex-Sep. Pawan Kumar was enrolled in Indian Army as a Sepoy and was allotted Service No.9212744. After putting in 17 years of service he was invalided out of military service on medical ground on 4.12.1972. The disability of the petitioner was assessed by the Medical Board at 20 per cent attributable to his service and so, he was granted the disability pension which he received till 23.5.1978. It is not disputed that disability pension granted to the petitioner was discontinued for the reason that the petitioner was subjected to a Re-survey Medical Board which re-assessed the disability of the petitioner as less than 20 per cent. On 20.4.1979, the Record Office had requested the PCDA (P) Allahabad to award the service element to the petitioner but the same was rejected by the said Authority on the ground that the petitioner had been invalided out of military service prior to 1.1.1973 and was not entitled to service element. According to the petitioner he came to know on 5.12.2003 that various persons had been granted service element by the respondent despite the fact that the disability element was less than 20 per cent. The petitioner then moved a representation to the Chief of Army Staff for grant of service element for which no response was received resulting in the filing of the present Writ Petition. According to the petitioner, the present case is squarely covered by a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Mahabir Singh v. Union of India and Ors. in CWP No.2382/2003 decided on 27.3.2006.

(2.) It is a settled principle of law that the disability pension contains two elements, i.e., service element and disability element. Even if the disability ceases after grant of disability pension or is reduced less than 20 per cent during the period subsequent to the grant of disability pension , the person would still be entitled to receive service benefit. The judgment of the Division Bench is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Reference can also be made to the provisions of Regulation 186, which reads as under:

(3.) Even in the letter dated 3.2.2006, the respondents had informed the petitioner that he was retired from service prior to 1.1.1973 and as such, his case does not fall within the provisions of Para 3 of the said letter and would not be entitled to get service element. The respondents also, in the various correspondence to the petitioner, informed him that the Re-survey Medical Board had assessed the disability less than 20 per cent which fact is not disputed by the petitioner. The objections of the respondents have been squarely dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahabir Singh (Supra) with which we have no reason to differ.