UNION OF INDIA Vs. MIN BAHADUR RAWAL CHHETRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 28th January, 2021, after going through the records, we had directed the learned advocate representing the appellants to produce the Office Memorandum No. 27011/64/2009 ' R &W dated 21st November, 2011, which was referred to in the impugned judgment and order dated 16th November, 2017, rendered by the learned Single Judge. It appears that there was a typographical mistake in the impugned judgment and order dated 16th February, 2017. The Office Memorandum should actually read as 21st April, 2011 and not 21st November, 2011, as wrongly recorded by the learned Single Judge.

(2.) The brief fact of the petitioner's case in a nutshell is that:

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner during his service period sustained bullet injury and thereafter, the extent of injury was assessed by the Medical Board of the Assam Rifles who found that the injury sustained by him was 40% and thereafter, he was placed on ground duty till his retirement i.e. 01.11.2014. Thereafter, he was allowed to go for pension with pensionary benefits under Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules. The learned counsel further raised before the Court that, since the petitioner sustained injury during his service, it amounts to injury suffered contributed to his service. Since assessment was done and found 40% injury, the petitioner should be given compensation entitled for the 40% injury he suffered. So, necessary directions may be issued.