EX-CAPT. HARBHAJAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EX -Captain Harbhajan Singh has filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the respondents for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the documents Annexures P -7, P -10 and P -17 vide which CCDA(P) has unilaterally reduced the disability percentage of the petitioner to less than 20% against the opinion of the Medical Board, The petitioner has further made a prayer that he be allowed the benefit of disability pension with effect from 9.4.1997 along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

(2.) SOME facts can be noticed in the following manner. The petitioner was granted Short Service Commission in the Army on 3.9.1977. The petitioner was released from Army Service on the ground of medical unfitness on 30.10.1982. He was found to be a case of 'Sensory Neural Defence (Bilateral)'. According to the petitioner, the disability assessed by the Medical Board was aggravated but it was unilaterally reduced by the CCDA(P) vide letter dated 5.12.1983. The petitioner was not satisfied with the conduct of the CCDA(P), therefore, he filed CWP 11929 of 1992 in the Hon'ble High Court which was allowed on -27.8.1997. The Government of India filed LPA before the Hon'ble Division Bench and it was also dismissed on 25.4.1997. Then Re -Survey Medical Board was constituted by the respondents which held its meeting on 9.4.1997. The petitioner appeared before the Medical Board and the Board again assessed the disability of the petitioner at 20%. When the matter went to CCDA(P), again it reduced the disability percentage to less than 20%, as a result of which the petitioner was again deprived of the benefit of disability pension. It may be mentioned here that petitioner was granted the benefit of disability pension upto 8.4.1997, and that the petitioner has been denied the benefit of disability pension with effect from 9.4.1997. In short, the case set up by the petitioner is that CCDA(P) unilaterally had no jurisdiction to reduce the disability percentage of the petitioner and such action on the part of the CCDA is ultra vires and illegal.

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