UNION OF INDIA Vs. KAMALAVATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Union of India and its functionaries have filed the aforesaid mentioned appeal challenging, inter alia, the order dated 13.9.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in O.J.C. No. 8056 of 2000, whereby and where under the learned Single Judge allowed the writ application and directed the Union of India to calculate the disability pension of the late husband of the writ petitioner and pay the same to her within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

(2.) Case of the petitioner is that her husband was enrolled as a sepoy in the Indian Army on 27.8.1980. His enrollment number was 13950776. He earned many laurels for his outstanding works. In the year 1990, he was directed to appear before the Medical Board. On the recommendation of the medical board, he was discharged from services on 10.7.1990. After discharge from service, he made a representation for payment of disability pension. An intimation was sent to him that his case was being considered and the same was forwarded for payment of disability pension. But then the same was turned down vide Annexure-2. On being unsuccessful, he preferred an appeal. During pendency of the appeal, he expired and thereafter the petitioner submitted an application for payment of pension to her. The said petition was rejected on the ground that her husband was not given disability pension and accordingly she was not entitled to any pension. An intimation was also sent to the petitioner that the appeal filed by her husband has been rejected. Challenging the said orders vide Annexures 3 and 4 as well as the order in Annexure-2, the petitioner has filed the petition.

(3.) Pursuant to the issuance of notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by opposite parties 1 to 3 contending, inter alia, that the late husband of the petitioner was admitted to 155 BH on 13.4.1989 and was discharged on 12.5.1989. He was diagnosed as neurosis. It is further stated that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, as the disease was considered as constitutional in nature and unconnected with military service. In view of the same, the claim of the late husband of the petitioner for payment of disability pension was turned down by the competent authority as well as the appellate authority.