UNION OF INDIA (UOI) Vs. KARNAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KARNAIL Singh, who was enrolled as a Soldier in the Indian Army in the month of February, 1972 and discharged on March 1, 1987, successfully challenged order, Annexure P -1, dated November 6, 1986, vide which his prayer for grant of disability pension was rejected, as Civil Writ Petition bearing No. 5539 of 1997 filed by him was allowed by the learned Single Judge on July 11, 1991. It is this order of the learned Single Judge, which has since been challenged in this appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging order, Annexure P -1, as projected in the petition, reveal that Karnail Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') was enrolled as a Soldier in the Indian Army in the month of February, 1972. It has been his case that at the time of his enrollment, his eye sight (left as well as right) was 6/6. However, in the year 1975, he and other Jawans of 17 Sikhs Regiment were undergoing military training in the peace area of Ramgarh Sector. Soldiers were divided into two groups and one group was to attack the other with grenade No. 90 meant for training purposes. According to the petitioner, grenade thrown by the other group hit on his left hand and exploded. Due to the explosion, there was an extreme lightening, due to which his vision of left eye started deteriorating. He informed Shri Dayal Singh, Subedar that because of the explosion of grenade, which was used during military training, pain had developed in his eye. He was immediately sent to the Captain, who was the Incharge of medical room. Thereafter his case was referred to Ramgarh Military Hospital. In January 1976, the unit of which the petitioner was a member, was transferred to Meerut On August 20, 1976, he was admitted in the Military Hospital. He was downgraded to medical category CEE (P) in December, 1978. In December, 1978, 17 Sikh Unit was transferred to Nagaland and he was operated upon in Military Hospital at Gauhati on November 30, 1978. Ultimately, the unit was transferred to Ferozepur in the year 1980 and his medical category was upgraded to BEE (P). It has further been the case of the petitioner that he lost vision in one eye during his service in the Indian Army and as such the said disability was attributed to or aggravated by military service, that he had rendered and further his disability was assessed at 40%. Vide letter dated November 6, 1986, Shri R.C.. Sharma, Captain, Record Officer for Officer Incharge Records, Sikh Regiment Ramgarh Cantt., informed him that his disability pension had been rejected by the CDA (P) Allahabad vide their letter No. G -III/86/7406/III/135 dated October 1. 1986, as the disability suffered by him was not attributed to military service. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, Annexure P -1, rejecting his request for grant of disability pension, he made representation dated January 31, 1987 (Annexure P -2) to the Army Headquarter, New Delhi, stating therein that while he joined the Indian Army in the year 1972, his eye vision was perfect (6/6). while serving the Army, he had to undergo one eye operation on August 29, 1976. He was downgraded to medical category BEE (P) due to the said eye operation. He kept on getting advice from the medical experts in the Army and after some time, he was again downgraded to medical category CEE (P) in December 1979. It was mentioned by him in the representation aforesaid that Military Hospital AKHNUR recommended his disability pension at 40% and all necessary documents regarding pension were also sent to the Record Sikh Regiment for further action. Ultimately, he was discharged from Army on January 9, 1987. Vide letter dated February 11, 1987, the Record Officer for Officer Incharge Record, Sikh Regiment Abhilekh Karyalaya Record, the Sikh Regiment, Ramgarh Cantt., sent his appeal dated January 31, 1987 against rejection of disability pension to the CDA (P) G -III Section, Allahabad. When, however, his aforesaid representation said to have been forwarded to the concerned authorities by treating it as an appeal brought no tangible result, he filed writ petition with the result already indicated above.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, as extracted above, learned Single Judge observed as follows: -