JAGDISH EX CFN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner was getting disability pension from 27.10.1974. Later on it was stopped. He has filed the writ petition claiming the following reliefs: To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the rejection letter (copy never sent to the petitioner). To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the 20% disability w.e.f. 28.10.1974 and also pay the arrears alongwith the interest thereon.

(2.) The fact that he was being paid disability till October 1974 is not denied by the respondents. The stand taken by the respondents in the counter is that the disability pension to the petitioner was re-assessed at less than 20% final on 04.04.1978 because effects of aggravation of his disability deemed to have passed off. According to the Respondents the CCDA (P) Allahabad after due consideration of disability pension claim in consultation with MA(P) attached to them re-assessed his disability less than 20% final and discontinued his disability pension. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.M. Hooda had relied upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in CA No. 164 of 1993 (Ex. Sapper Mohinder Singh Vs. Union of India) dated 14.01.1993 and submitted that once the competent medical Board had given the opinion about the disability that cannot be changed by the CCDA (P) Allahabad without any material. The Supreme Court held: We have examined the relevant materials and we do not feel satisfied with the plea taken in the counter affidavit. No details of the consultation has been disclosed by the respondent nor it is claimed that the appellant has been re-examined by any higher medical authority. We are not prepared to act on the vague allegations in the counter affidavit referred to above. In view of all the relevant circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the Disability Pension assessed at the rate of 40% by the Medical Board, which had examined the appellant, should be respected until a fresh Medical Board examines the appellant again and comes to a different conclusion. Accordingly, we direct that for the period 1.8.1989 to 31.1.1993 the appellant shall be paid the Disability Pension at the rate of 40% and it will be open to the authority concerned to have the appellant re-examined by a property constituted Medical Board for re-assessment of the disability with effect from 01.02.1993.

(3.) The Division Bench of this Court had to consider the point in CW No.2811 of 1993 by judgementdated06.02.1995. The Division Bench held: