S NEELAKANDAPILLAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA REP BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, (PENSION GRIEVANCE CELL); THE RECORD OFFICER, MADRAS REGIMENT ABHILEKH KARYALAYA RECORDS, THE MADRAS REGIMENT AND THE DIRECTOR, EX-SERVICEMEN BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks to challenge the order of the second respondent dated 11.5.1999 wherein and by which the petitioner was denied service pension as well as disability pension. In respect of the service pension, it was stated that he got enrolled in the Army on 02.4.1948 (Travancore State Armed Force). Subsequently, the said Force got merged with the Madras Regiment of the Indian Army. The petitioner was discharged from service on 01.2.1955 and altogether he has put in 6 years and 307 days qualifying service. Since a minimum of 15 years qualifying service is required to earn service pension, he was informed that he was not eligible for any service pension. By the same impugned order, the petitioner was also informed that he was also not eligible for any disability pension.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that while he was in the Hyderabad Unit of the Indian Army, his unit was sent to Kashmir. But he could not join that unit due to an ailment in his left eye. He was treated in the Army hospital as well as in the Navy hospital at Mumbai. He was operated upon and in the course of the treatment he lost his left eyesight. Though the petitioner claimed the disability pension, the same was denied by the respondents. After sending representations, the petitioner filed the writ petition claiming for a direction to the respondents to consider his representation dated 06.6.1999.

(3.) He placed reliance upon Rule 173 of the Army Rules, which provides primary conditions for grant of disability pension. Rule 173 reads as follows: