K A VIJOY Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved since he is denied the disability pension. Disability to the extent of 60% is admitted. The petitioner also has been included in the medical category EEE and he is thus unfit for service under the respondents. Pension is refused on the ground that the disease suffered by the petitioner is not a scheduled one under the Schedule to the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). That the personnel under the respondents are governed by the above mentioned Rules, is not disputed.

(2.) Petitioner entered service of the Boarder Security Force as Constable (OPR) and joined duty on 26.4.1973. He was thereafter promoted as Naik (OPR), Head Constable (Cipher) and Assistant Sub Inspector (Cipher). While the petitioner was serving in Assam/West Bengal in 1984, he developed dandruff slowly and then some skin lesions causing itching which spread all over the body. He came to Delhi for Cipher Grade II Course. He was referred to Skin OPD Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi and they referred him to AIIMS. He took treatment for about four months. He returned to Siliguri. His disease aggravated and he took treatment in SSKM Hospital, Calcutta. He was not cured. He was transferred to 25 Bn BSF, Delhi on medical grounds in January 1988. He was placed in Low Medical Category (CEE(T) for one year from 11-06-1990 to 10-09-1991. He was produced before a medical board on 20-01-1992. The medical board held on 20-01-1992 included him in medical category EEE with 60% disability and declared him to be completely and permanently incapacitated for further service of any kind in the department to which he belongs, due to 'PSORIASIS VULGARIS'. Accordingly the petitioner was invalidated out from service with effect from 30-9-1992.

(3.) Though the petitioner claimed disability pension, the stand taken by the respondents is that "as per medical board proceedings, the disease is not attributable to service. The contention that the disease has aggravated as a result of posting in various places is therefore not tenable". Yet another main contention taken by the respondents is that the disease is not covered by Schedule 1(A) of the Rules. In view of the contentions taken as above the crucial question to be tackled is whether the disability suffered by the petitioner is covered by the Rules.