KANHAIYA LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ of mandamus has prayed for directions to the respondents to release his disability pension along with interest at the earliest.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case giving rise to this petition are as follows : the petitioner was enrolled in 13 Battalion CRPF Ajmer in the year 1976 as Safai Karamchari (No. 761240871 ). On 26. 10. 83 while the petitioner was posted at Agartala (Tripura), he was injured while on duty and on 7. 2. 84 his left leg below knee was amputated. The petitioner, thus, became permanently disabled with one leg. It is alleged that the petitioner had suffered injury while he was working in Taliyamore, D Company, 73 Battalion and was asked by mast. Havaldar to clean the store. When he was cleaning the store, some setroys were putting Iron Pickets and due to negligence of one Sepoy, one iron picket slipped and fell on the foot of the petitioner which allegedly led to the aforesaid permanent disability. On 3. 8. 84 a medical board was constituted by the chief Medical Officer, Base Hospital, New Delhi to carry out the medical examination of the petitioner. The Medical Board recommended for boarding out the petitioner on medical grounds. The petitioner was accordingly discharged from the service due to permanent disability on 30. 9. 84 without any disability pension. The petitioner thereafter approached the higher authorities for granting the disability pension but the same was refused on the ground that he did not have qualifying service of 10 years and was, therefore, not entitled for invalidation pension/disability pension under the provisions of Rule 49 (CCS pension) Rules, 1972. The respondent no. 3 issued a certificate dated 8. 4. 95 whereby the petitioner was informed that he was not entitled for pension since his service was less than 10 years. Thereafter, the petitioner made a number of representations dated 1. 9. 94, 31. 10. 94, 1. 1. 95, 23. 2. 95, 25. 10. 95,7. 6. 96, 26. 8. 96 and 7. 10. 96 to the respondents requesting them to release invalidation pension and disability pension as per Rule 9 (3) (b) of CCS (EOP) Rules 1939 and the Pension with Disability Equal Opportunities etc. Act, 1995. Vide letter dated 3. 10. 1997, the case of the petitioner was again referred for re-examination by the Joint Deputy Director (Pension) to the respondents. The respondents thereafter re-examined the matter in view of letters dated 3. 10. 1997, 10. 2. 1998, 8. 5. 1998 and 17. 12. 1998 written by respondent no. 4, ministry of Public Grievances and Pensions Welfare and decided to grant the benefit of pension to the petitioner which was communicated to him vide letter dated 24. 3. 1999 and the petitioner was asked to submit the necessary application in the prescribed format. On receipt of order dated 24. 3. 1999, the petitioner made a representation dated 1. 5. 1999 and requested the respondents to intimate him the Pension Payment Order (PPO) Number and the relevant details so that he could fill up the prescribed format. When such details were not received by the petitioner from the respondents he again made a representation dated 1. 11. 1999 and requested for prompt action on his representation. The respondent no. 2 vide order dated 22. 6. 2001 intimated the petitioner that his matter was re-examined and it was decided that since he had not completed ten years of qualifying service, he was not entitled for disability pension under the CCS (Pension)Rules. Being aggrieved by the order of the respondents denying him disability pension, the petitioner filed a Civil Writ Petition on 6. 9. 2001 being CWP No. 5478/2001 in this Court and alleged that the denial of disability pension to him was in violation of Rule 9 (3) (b) of CCS (Extra Ordinary Pension) Rules. This court vide its judgment dated 17. 9. 2002 set aside the impugned order and the matter was remitted back to the respondents for consideration of the matter afresh. This Court also directed the respondents to examine Head Constable jaswant Singh, then Commandant D/13. This Court also observed in its aforementioned order that by reasons of provisions of pension rules, completion of 10 years of service was not required. On 10. 1. 2003 the Assistant Commandant manoj Kumar recorded the statement of Head Constable Jaswant Singh at his residence. Head Constable Jaswant Singh deposed in his statement recorded by assistant Commandant Manoj Kumar that he had not given any order to the petitioner for cleaning the store on 26. 11. 1983.

(3.) IN view of the statement of Head Constable Jaswant Singh, the respondents reiterated their stand and informed the petitioner vide their letter dated 14. 2. 2003 that he was not entitled to any pension because he has not completed minimum 10 years of qualifying service till 13. 9. 84.