GURDEEP SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Gurdeep Singh has filed this petition for issuance of a direction to the respondents to continue paying him the disability pension, which has been stopped since 9.12.1971 or in the alternative, to pay him the service element of the pension, which he is entitled to receive for life.

(2.) The petitioner, who was enrolled in the Indian Army on 22.3.1955, was invalided out of service on the recommendations of the medical board in the year 1963. At that time, he was placed in medical category 'EEE' and his disability was assessed at 100%. He was, accordingly, granted disability pension consisting of both the elements i.e. disability and service. He was brought before the resurvey medical board from time to time and finally in the year 1973, his disability, after being assessed by the resurvey medical board, at more than 20%, was reduced by the higher authorities without lawful justification. As a consequence thereof, both the service as well as disability elements of the disability pension were stopped. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected on 20.10.1989. After this, the petitioner continued sending representations and ultimately filed this petition on 16.1.1999. According to him, apart from the fact that stoppage of disability pension on that ground the disability assessed was less that 20%, is wholly illegal, the respondents would in any case be entitled to release the service element of the pension and stoppage thereof cannot be justified.

(3.) In the written reply filed on behalf of the respondents, the fact that the petitioner had been invalided out on account of petrol burns effects with effect from 10.3.1964 was admitted. It was, however, pointed out that on a Resurvey Medical Board being convened on 11.9.1971, the disability of the petitioner was assessed at less than 20% and, therefore, the disability pension was discontinued. It was further submitted that in the year 1973, the petitioner had claimed a substantial increase in his disability and he was brought before the Resurvey Medical Board at Army Hospital, Delhi Cantt. on 14.8.1973, when his disability was reassessed at less than 20%. The petitioner had made again similar complaint in the year 1989 but the Resurvey Medical Board had opined that the disability was Nil and consequently, the Chief CDA (P) Allahabad had turned down his request for disability pension. It was also submitted that an individual, who was initially granted disability pension but whose disability on reassessment was found to be less than 20%, shall cease to be entitled to receive disability pension from the date it falls below 20%. It is admitted that he would be entitled to payment of service element but this is subject to his having rendered 10 years qualifying service, in which case he would be entitled to receive the service element as the invalided pension for his life. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.