BHIMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging communication dated 28.12.1990 and 28.10.1996 issued by the Respondent No.2, thereby holding that the petitioner is not entitled for disability pension. The petitioner has further prayed for n direction to the Respondents to grant disability pension to the petitioner with effect from 1.12.1989 along with interest.

(2.) The petitionerjoined asa Naikin UnitNo.15, Maratha Light Infuntry atBelgaum on 11.11.1974. After serving the army for almost ten years, the petitioner met with an accident on 27.8.1984. When he was travelling in Army jeep he sustained fracture to his left leg and was admitted in Hospital at Jamnagar. After the petitioner joined the services, the Respondent conducted the Court of inquiry about disability which the petitioner acquired due to accident. During inquiry the disability was estimated at 30% and accordingly an entry in the service book was also recorded. The petitioner's case was thereafter physically reexamined by the Medical Board at 92, Base Hospital, Shrinagar on 15.9.1989, which Board also held that the disability of the petitioner was upto 30%. The petitioner, therefore, came to be discharged from services on 30.11.1989. From 1.12.1989, the petitioner was being paid the regular pension. However, since the petitioner claims that on account of the disability which he acquired while on duty, he was entitled to disability pension also, he made various representations. It appears that there was certain correspondence between different offices of the Respondent and vide the communication dated 8.6.1992, the petitioner was informed that his disability was less than 20% and as such was not entitled to disability pension. The petitioner again made representation for reconsidering his case. Vide communication impugned, his request was rejected. Hence, the petition.

(3.) Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that when immediately after the accident in a Court of inquiry the petitioner was found to have suffered 30% disability which was confirmed by the Board of Director at Shrinagar, there was no occasion for the Respondent No.3 to resurvey the matter and deny the claim of the petitioner for disability pension.