S GAUTAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari seeking quashing of the order dated 30.9.1999, copy of which is Annexure-P.5, passed by respondent No. 3 declining the claim of the petitioner for disability pension and for issuance of a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for disability pension and grant the same.

(2.) The petitioner joined the service of Indian Coast Guard on 5.1.1988 as a Navik (Radio Operator). In the month of January 1989, he was medically diagnosed as a case of generalised seizure/Epilepsy and for that reason placed in low medical category. In the month of May 1996, the re-categorisation of Medical Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') recommended the release of the petitioner from service. Taking into consideration the recommendations of the Board, the Deputy Director General, Coast Guard, being the competent authority, approved the discharge of the petitioner from service on 10.10.1996. Thereafter, a Release Medical Board considered the case of the petitioner on 3.1.1997 and approved the discharge of the petitioner from service on 26.3.1997. Resultantly, he was invalidated out of service under Rule 26 of the Coast Guard (General) Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') on 15.5.1997. At that stage, he was paid Naval Group Insurance Scheme disability benefits and Service Gratuity/Retirement Gratuity as per Rules. Aggrieved by the action of respondent No. 2, a representation dated 3.8.1999 (Annexure-P.4) was addressed by the petitioner to the Commanding Officer, GGS, Mumbai, wherein it was stated by him that he had developed the disease known as Epilepsy after joining the service, during the period of his service of more than 9 years in the Indian Coast Guard and as this disease is attributable to the service he was entitled to receive all disability benefits. His representation was considered by respondent No. 2 and rejected on the ground that disability suffered by him was not attributable to service and that the disease suffered by him did not fall in the list of classifications of diseases which can be contracted in service as detailed in Schedule-1-A of Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules (hereinafter referred to 'EOP Rules') and the letter dated 30.9.1999 (Annexure-P.5) was communicated to the petitioner in this regard. It is this letter which has been challenged in the present petition.

(3.) On notice of motion, the respondents in their written reply justified the rejection of claim of the petitioner for disability pension on the basis of letter dated 30.9.1999 (Annexure-P.5). It was pleaded by them that the petitioner had rendered in all 9 years, 4 months and 10 days service and under Rule 49 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1972 Rules'), government servant retiring from service before completing qualifying service of 10 years is not entitled to monthly pension. As the petitioner was suffering from seizure disorder which disease does not figure in the list Schedule-1-A of the Rules is neither attributable to nor connected with the activities of the service, he was not entitled to the disability benefits claimed by him.