BALBIR SINGH JOHAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Balbir Singh Johar petitioner has filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the Union of India and others and he has made a prayer that this Court may issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order Annexure P -8 dated 30th June, 1997 vide which the case of the petitioner for disability pension was rejected. The petitioner further made a prayer that directions be issued to the respondent -authorities to release the benefit of disability element along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent.

(2.) THE case set up the petitioner is that he joined the Indian Air Force as Electrical Fitter on 23rd June, 1962. At the time of his admission or entry into the Air Force, he was medically checked up thoroughly and he was found fit to perform duty. He was also declared medically fit on number of occasions while in service. So much so the petitioner rendered the service during Indo - Pak War of 1965 and 1971. He was declared medically fit several times during the course of his service and different tests were performed upon him by the competent medical authorities from 1962 to 1977, but in the year 1977 the petitioner felt low backache and started taking medical treatment in various hospitals and his treatment continued up to 1980 and subsequently the petitioner was placed in Permanent Low Medical Category for Sacralisation of LV5 (Lower Vertebra 5) by a classified surgical specialist. On 30th June, 1993 the medical authorities examined the petitioner and recommend for his release from the service by reducing him in Category 'C' permanent. The petitioner made a request to discharge him on compassionate ground. At the time of discharge in 1993 the disability of the petitioner was assessed 20%. He made a claim for disability element but it was rejected on the ground that it was not clear whether disability suffered by the petitioner is attributable to Air Force service or it was before service. The petitioner made a prayer that his request may be sympathetically considered, but to no effect. He also filed an appeal, issued various reminders and finally the appeal of the petitioner was rejected in the year 1997. Hence the present writ petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, have gone through the record of this case.