VINAY MOHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was a Corporal in Indian Air Force, has assailed the order of discharge from services passed against him on 24.4.2001 and various other orders rejecting his representations seeking reinstatement in services and pensionary benefits.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he joined the Indian Air Force as Airman Technical on 17.8.1990. After completion of training, he was duly commissioned and subsequently promoted as Leading Aircraft Man on 1.10.1994.On 25.4.1995, he was promoted to the rank of Corporal. As per petitioner, he suffered injuries while discharging his duties. Proper medical treatment was not provided to him by the concerned defence authorities. Later on, after clinical examination and conducting, MRI, it was detected that the petitioner was suffering from developmental lumber canal stenosis. He was having other serious complications also. The petitioner was placed in Cat 'CEE' category for six months. When the petitioner was not assigned light sitting duties by the concerned officers of Air Force Station, tughlakabad, New Delhi, he applied for premature discharge from services. Formal application was given on 30.9.2000. According to the petitioner, this application dated 30.9.2000 was rejected and he was advised to seek discharge on compassionate/medical grounds. On being so advised by the Air Force authorities, the petitioner submitted another application seeking discharge and consequently he was discharged from services on 24.4.2001. He has not been allowed any service pension/disability pension. According to the petitioner, he was entitled for pension or at least disability pension as he was discharged from military services on the ground of physical incapacity. The petitioner received a letter from the authorities of Indian Air Force indicating therein that his disability level was 15 to 19%. The petitioner submitted several letters to the authorities for his reinstatement in services or for allowing him service pension/disability pension. All these applications were arbitrarily rejected. The petitioner has not been dealt with fairly properly by the opposite parties. He was entitled for compassionate treatment as he had sustained grievous injuries while discharging his official duties of loading and unloading missile in a transport loading and unloading vehicle in the first week of October, 1993. The Medical Board has also not properly dealt with the matter. The petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of Honble Supreme Court as reported in (SC), Kunal v. Union of India and another, 2003 2 JT 132 in support of his submissions.

(3.) Sri Q.H. Rizvi, learned standing counsel has opposed the writ petition on behalf of the Union of India and others. According to the opposite parties, the petitioner was discharged from the services of Indian Air Force at his own request before fulfilling the conditions of his enrolment. He was discharged as per provisions of Rule 15(2)(f) contained in Chapter III of Air Force Rules, 1969 . The petitioner himself applied for discharge on compassionate ground and his application, a copy of which is contained in Annexure 16 to the writ petition, was approved by the competent authority as per rules. It has been denied by the opposite parties that the petitioner had suffered any injury in October, 1993; rather he was medically examined on 4.5.1994 prior to his commissioning in the Indian Air Force. According to the learned standing counsel, the petitioner has fabricated a false story regarding his injury allegedly suffered by him in October, 1993. The petitioner was given proper medical treatment. His case was referred to General Surgeon and Neuro Surgeon also. He was advised surgery but on three occasions he refused to undergo surgery. Photostat copies of unwillingness certificate duly signed by the petitioner have been annexed as Annexures CA-1, CA-2, and CA-3 to the counter affidavit to highlight this fact. In the month of April, 2001, the petitioner underwent a Release Medical Board. He was placed in medical category CEE (Permanent). According to the opposite parties, the petitioner was himself responsible for not undergoing surgical treatment and now after submitting unwillingness certificate thrice, he cannot be permitted to make these allegations against the concerned authorities of Indian Air Force.