HARIBANS NARAIN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After 25 years of invalidation from the military services, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C) NO. 79/2003 which was disposed of vide order dated 6.3.2003 directing that the petitioner be considered in view of the detailed judgment of the Court in the case of Constable Jasbir Singh vs. Union of India and Ors. 104 (2003) DLT 5 (DB).

(2.) The petitioner served a legal notice upon the respondents on 7.4.2003 to comply with the directions of the Court and to consider his case for grant of relief. This notice was replied to by the respondents vide their letter dated 4.3.2004 to which an amendment was issued by the respondents on 17.5.2004 correcting the number of the writ petitions referred to in the said order. Vide this order the respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of disability pension. The impugned order reads as under:-

(3.) The correctness of the above order is questioned by the petitioner in the present writ petition on the ground that the petitioner was inducted into the Force after being found fit in all respects, as per the prescribed medical standards and the invalidation of the petitioner from the military service was based on a disability which was attributable to and aggravated by Military Service, and as such the petitioner was entitled to receive the disability pension in terms of Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations, 1961. As per the facts on record, the petitioner was enrolled in Army Service as a driver on 23.4.1977. He was recruited at the recruiting office, Muzaffarpur, Bihar. He claims to have been subjected to medical examination wherein he was found absolutely fit in all respects and was placed in Medical Category 'AYE' and after completion of the formalities the petitioner was deputed to the training where during the physical training the Instructor found that the petitioner had six fingers i.e. an extra digit in the left hand thumb. Thereafter, he was subjected to a medical board and on medical grounds he was discharged from service on 25.6.1977 without any application of mind. According to the petitioner, the respondents are estopped from pleading that the petitioner is medically unfit when he was found to be fit in all respects and was placed in the category 'AYE', just two months prior to the relevant date. According to the petitioner, the action of the respondent is arbitrary, illegal, unjustified and the petitioner is entitled to grant of disability pension.