BALBIR CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was recruited in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (in short ITBP) on 7th August, 1981. He was, however, discharged from the ITBP on 15th June, 1988 on medical grounds. The Office order dated 15th June, 1988 discharging the petitioner from the ITBP reads as under :-

(2.) In the report, dated 28th January, 1988 of the Medical Board, which conducted the medical examination of the petitioner, it has been observed as under :-

(3.) Vide order, dated 11th February, 1986 (Annexure P.2), the Commandant (Admn.) HADS Academy ITBP, informed the petitioner that though he had been declared fit for less laborious character of duties by the Medical Board, but keeping in view that service conditions and places of posting at high altitude and hilly areas on the borders and at the location of the HADS Academy of the ITBP, there was no possibility of employing the petitioner for the duties of less laborious nature, and consequently, a decision had been taken to board out the petitioner on medical grounds under the provisions of Rule 38(4) of the Rules, quoted above. The petitioner was given an opportunity to represent against the said order. Accordingly, the petitioner made a representation that he should be given a posting where the duties are of less laborious nature. However, the request of the petitioner was declined vide order dated 15th June, 1988, already referred to above. It may be mentioned that in the representation, the petitioner stated that he was now fit enough and another Medical Board should be constituted to medically examine him again. The petitioner further made representation on 16th November, 1988 that he should be given pension and vide order dated 22nd November, 1988 (Annexure P.7), Director, HADS Academy, BTC, Police, Ministry of Home, Government of India, Mussoorie, informed the petitioner that since he had only 6 years 10 months and 8 days' service to his credit, he was not entitled to service pension. As far as the request that he should be given extraordinary disability pension under the Rules, the same was also declined on the ground that the disease from which the petitioner was suffering had not occurred due to conditions of service and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to extraordinary disability pension. The petitioner challenges by way of the present writ petition, order dated 11th February, 1988 (Annexure P.20) by which it was held that he could not be employed at place where the duties are of less laborious character; order dated 15th June, 1988 (Annexure P.6) by which the petitioner was boarded out from service and order dated 22nd November, 1988 (Annexure P.7), by which the extraordinary disability pension was declined.