HAV. RAJ MAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAV . Raj Mal Singh has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/ of the Constitution of India against the respondents and it has been prayed by the petitioner that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing the orders Annexures P3 and P5 issued by the respondent authorities and further a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued against the respondents directing them to give the benefit of disability pension to him as he was invalidated from the military service on account of the injury which he suffered during the course of his duty.

(2.) THE case set up by the petitioner is that he joined the Army on 1.8.1951. He was medically examined at the time of entry into service and was found medically fit in all respects. On 19.6.1959 he was transferred to Reserve and was again transferred to 668 Construction and Equipment Company (GREF) on 3.10.1960. In the year 1962 he was recalled to join Army during the war when he was serving with GREF and he reported at Kirkee. On 3.12.1971 he was given duty at Ajmer and when he was proceeding on temporary duty to Udaipur he met with an accident and sustained injury. Court of Inquiry confirmed that the injury was fully attributable to the military service. The Medically Board downgraded the petitioner and placed in medical category "C (P)". On 31.7.1973 he was transferred to pension establishment on fulfilling his conditions of enrolment. He served 20 years and 62 days. Since he suffered the disability when he was on duty with the respondent authorities, therefore, he was entitled to the benefit of disability pension also though he is getting the ordinary pension. The grouse of the petitioner is that in spite of the fact that he made representations to the respondent authorities for giving him the benefit of disability pension, he has been deprived of this benefit vide orders which are under challenge. He made representation in the year 1998 but to no effect. Hence the present writ petition.

(3.) A re -joinder was also filed by the petitioner in which he reiterated the allegations made in the petition by denying those of the written statement.