V SUKUMARAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext.P10 order issued by the 3rd respondent, the competent authority, is under challenge. It may not be necessary for me to refer to the minor details since this order had been passed in view of the directions of this Court in O.P.No. 15052/1994. The learned Judge had directed the respondents to reconsider the matter appropriately. Ext.P10, the consequential order held that the petitioner s disablement assessed as 40% was not capable of attracting compensation under the Workmen s Compensation Act and hence his claims were not sustainable. This order is under challenge. The question arising for decision is as to whether assessment of disability would thereby make a person eligible for compensation, when it is not recognized as not arising from an employment injury.

(2.) A few facts that might be necessary for a proper appreciation of the claims are as given below. The petitioner was enrolled in the General Reserve Engineer Force in 1964. He had, during 1979, developed Osteoarthritis on the left knee with low back ache. After treatment, he had been placed under the Medical Category GREF III by a medical board date. 22.12.1978. On such medical re-categorisation, he was placed in Category II with 40% disability effective from 10.07.1979. Taking note of the above circumstances, he was engaged imposing restrictions for duty at high altitude areas and he had continued as such for the rest of his career.

(3.) After 26 years of rendering Qualifying Service, petitioner had opted for voluntary retirement and it was approved by the competent authority with effect from 30.09.1990. This was as per Rule 48A of C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972 and he had been struck off strength with effect from 1st of October, 1990. Thereafter, apparently in 1992, he had served Ext.P3 notice to the 3rd respondent demanding that as he has been re-categorised with 40% disablement, he has to be awarded compensation under the Workmen s Compensation Act to the extent of such disablement. This has been rejected and he had filed an Original Petition. A reconsideration of the case had been made as directed by the Court. The claim was rejected.