NAIK RAJ SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was serving in the Indian Army, has claimed disability pension.

(2.) The circumstances under which the petitioner's discharge are stated in the counter in the following terms. The petitioner was wounded in O.P. Riddle on 9.9.1965 while serving with 5 JAT. The result was there was amputation of his right index finger. He was placed in the medical category 'CEE' (temporary) for six months w.e.f. 13.8.1966 which was continued for a further period of six months w.e.f. 21.2.1967. The petitioner's case was reviewed and was placed in permanentmedical category 'CEE' on 19.1.1968 and retained in service in sheltered appointment. He was discharged from service w.e.f. 28.6.1970 as sheltered appointment was not available thereafter. He was brought before a Release Medical Board at Military Hospital, Bareilly. The Release Medical Board passed the disability at 1.5 percent attributable to military service. The claim of the petitioner for the disability pension was considered by the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions), Allahabad and the same was rejected on the ground that the disability had been assessed at 1.5 percent below pensionable degree i.e. 20 percent. That decision was communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner was paid invalid gratuity. In the counter, it is also stated that the petitioner had been representing for retention in the army service. As per the terms of the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, letter No. A/18219/VIII/Org/2(MP)(c)/48/D(AG- ll)dated 3.1.1973. The respondents did not comply with the request on the ground that the petitioner was discharged from service on 27.6.1970, long before the letter issued by the Ministry of Defence. His claim for disability pension was also rejected. The petitioner was given a chance for his rehabilitation in the post of peon in the Institute of Criminology and Forensic Science, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. The petitioner had not cared to join the post. The petitioner is not entitled to the disability pension. The order rejecting the representation dated 18.6.1996 was passed on 3.7.1997, which reads as under:

(3.) The petitioner has approached this Court as if the respondents did not offer him any employment and only for the first time his claim for disability pension was considered in July, 1996. No explanation has been forthcoming as to why the petitioner has not accepted the post offered to him. I am not inclined to accept the case of the petitioner.