SUKHDEV SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ex -Gunner Sukhdev Singh has challenged the validity of the order dated 1.3.1993 passed by CCDA (Pensions). Allahabad and dated 8.1.1996 passed by the Central Government Annexures P.2 and P.4 respectively to the writ petition rejecting his claim for grant of disability pension with a further prayer that respondents be directed to grant him the disability pension in terms of Army Pension Regulation 173 and all consequential benefits arising therefrom w.e.f. 1.8.1992, in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The necessary facts are that the petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on 15.11.1983 and allocated regiment of Artillery. While returning from leave from his home to his unit he met with an accident while travelling by an auto -rickshaw at Delhi in the year 1989. His left leg was fractured. He was downgraded to medical category CEE for six months. In 1990 his unit moved to Chandi Mandir whereafter he started getting head -ache and in the year 1992 was admitted to Psychiatric Ward of the Western Command Military Hospital. On 17.7.1992 he was downgraded to medical category EEE, and thereafter he was declared unfit by a medical board for continuing in army service. He was invalided from army with 60% disability on the same date. His claim for disability pension was declined on 1.3.1993 by CCDA (Pensions), Allahabad vide a cryptic order. He preferred an appeal against that on 21.4.1993 which was also rejected by the Central Government without assigning any reasonable cause vide order dated 8.1.1996. Thereafter he served a notice upon the respondents and filed the present writ petition. On the above facts the petitioner submits that his claim for disability pension has been arbitrarily rejected by the respondents and as such prays that orders Annexures P.2 and P.4 be quashed.

(3.) This claim of the petitioner was contested by the respondents who filed a detailed reply. It is not disputed that the petitioner had met with an accident and suffered fracture while coming from leave. It is also not disputed that he suffered disability to the extent of 60%. The relevant paragraphs of the reply read as un -" der : -