OMPRAKASH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was enrolled in the Army on 25. 01. 1972 and sought voluntary retirement on compassionate grounds due to domestic problems in december, 1991. The petitioner was also assessed at 20 per cent disability attributable to military service. However, in view of the own request of the petitioner, the petitioner was released from service with 20 per cent disability. The PCDA (P), however, rejected the claim of the petitioner for disability pension on the ground that the disability of the petitioner was only 14-19 per cent and thus below the benchmark of 20 per cent. The petitioner was asked to appear before the Re-Survey Medical Board on 16. 08. 1996 when his disability was again assessed by the Medical Board at 30 per cent but the pcda (P) again reduced the same to 14-19 per cent.

(2.) THE petitioner aggrieved by the same filed an appeal before an appellate Committee which was also rejected on 20. 09. 1999. The petitioner appeared before the Re-Survey Medical Board and thereafter on 23. 03. 2001 and his disability was again assessed at 30 per cent. The PCDA (P) once again on 13. 10. 2001 rejected the case of the petitioner by reducing his disability to 14-19 per cent. The appeal of the petitioner this time succeeded before the appellate Committee which directed the PCDA (P) to grant disability pension to the petitioner for 20 per cent disability in terms of the order dated 13. 08. 2003. The PCDA (P) consequently granted the disability pension to the petitioner with effect from 01. 05. 1992 at the rate of Rs. 310/- per month, but the pension disbursing authority on 03. 01. 2005 refused to implement the PPO and advised the petitioner to get the same amended.

(3.) THE PCDA (P), however, issued a corrigendum dated 15. 03. 2005 cancelling the PPO dated 13. 02. 2004 in toto on the ground that the petitioner had sought voluntary discharge and thus would not be entitled to disability pension. The petitioner represented against the same, but to no avail and the representations made by the petitioner were rejected on 18. 08. 2006 necessitating the filing of the present petition.