MAJ HARBANS LAL KHULLAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined the army in the Corps of EME (Electrical Mechanical Engineering) on 6.11.1959 as a Jawan. He earned commission on 23.7.1979. He was subjected to Medical Board at the time of his induction into the Army and also at the time when he was commissioned. On both the occasions, the petitioner was found medically fit in all respects.

(2.) The petitioner served at various places and sometimes his posting was made at high altitude/snow bound areas. He suffered heart attack and was resultantly evacuated to Ambala Military Hospital for treatment. His medical category was down graded accordingly. He, however, volunteered for service in IPKF (Indian Peace Keeping Force) and was accordingly sent to Sri Lanka in 1988/89. He developed IHD, obesity Lumber Spondylosis. Calcaneal Spurbilateral and Sensory Neural Deafness. He was again down graded in medical category and was placed in SI HZ A3 PZ E1. The results were obvious that he lost further promotions. He was put through Release Medical Boarding in October, 1994. It was notified by the Board that the petitioner is suffering from the disability which is more than 85% and aggravated by military service. He was, accordingly, released from the service on 30.6.1995. He claimed disability pension but none was granted. A notice dated 13.12.1996 was served upon Union of India for releasing the disability pension in pursuant to the regulations. The claim was not given in full but partial relief has been granted vide Annexure P1 dated 13.12.1998. The petitioner was dissatisfied and challenged the order by way of an appeal filed before the Government of India. The claim is that his disability has been reassessed and has been described as 60%. Therefore, he is entitled to rateable claim of disability pension. The appeal was rejected vide order dated 23.7.1998.

(3.) The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the authorities by way of present petition. The stand is that as per the regulation, if the disability suffered is more than 20% of more, the official is entitled to rateable disability pension. Reference has been made to regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations. It is further contended that the disability is admittedly attributable to or aggravated by military service as has been mentioned by the Resurvey Medical Board and which has not been upset by the subsequent Medical Board which was carried out in the year 1997. Even otherwise, it is contained in the Rules in Appendix II that if nothing is mentioned in the initially medical board carried out in respect of an officer, the subsequent disability suffered shall be deemed to be taken as aggravated by or attributable to military service. The respondents have, therefore, not granted the disability pension as claimed by the petitioner.