DALJIT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Constable of Central Reserved Police Force has filed this Regular Second Appeal to impugn the order whereby the percentage of disability suffered by him as assessed by the Board was reduced by the Director, which he challenged by filing a civil suit. The Medical Board had assessed the percentage of disability suffered by the appellant as 93.75%. This was statedly as per the Government instructions. Because of this disability, the appellant was entitled to ex-gratia amount of Rs. 90,000/- and pension of Rs. 3000/- per month for life. At the time of passing of the order, the appellant had rendered 16 years service. The disability assessed was issued by Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police and when the same was denied to him, he filed the suit.

(2.) On being put to notice, written statement was filed. By way of preliminary objections, it was stated that the suit was not maintainable. Jurisdiction of the civil Court was also challenged besides raising the plea of maintainability of the suit in the present form. On merits, it was submitted that the appellant felt weakness in lower limbs during 1979 and had undergone treatment in various hospitals and ultimately, after holding consecutive Boards was invalided out of service. It is conceded that the Board of Medical had examined the appellant on 3rd and 4th December, 2001 and assessed the disability as 93.75%. While deciding the case for grant of financial benefit, the competent authority had to review the case and curtailed the percentage of disability to 75%. Accordingly, he was paid the financial benefit to the tune of Rs. 87,000/- as per the rules and regulations. The Trial Court dismissed the suit by holding that the Director, Medical Board, could competently give his opinion about the percentage of disability by having access to case history etc. and accordingly action to decrease the disability to 75% was held justified. The Court found that there was no violation of any rule or instructions, which was pointed out.

(3.) The first Appellate Court again did not accept the plea of the appellant that percentage of his disability could not be lowered by an authority who had no opportunity to examine him. In this regard, the judgments referred to were ignored on the ground that these were in relation to army persons. The appellant is, therefore, before this Court in Regular Second Appeal.