RANJIT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the grant of disability pension being attributable to Military Service under Para 164 -A of the Defence Service Regulation read with Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulation of the Army 1961 Part -1. The facts leading to the filing of the petition are that the petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Medical Corps of the Army on 23 -4 -1941. He served the Army upto 4 -6 -1947 when he was invalidated out of service on account of disability suffered by him which was assessed at 30% by the Medical Board held at Pune on 8 -2 -1947. During the period of service, the petitioner was in active service for three years i. e. from 23 -9 -1941 to 17 -9 -1944 at Iraq which was known as Pai -Force i. e. desert area and an extremely hot climate. Besides for a period of 4 -1/2 months i. e. from 5 -3 -1945 to 19 -7 -1945, he was at Burma, a Hot Harmed Climate. It is submitted that during his service in the adverse terrain and adverse conditions, eyes of the petitioner were affected and he suffered loss of eye sight. On examination by the Medical Board, he was placed in Medical Category of CEE with disability assessed at 30%. In spite of the disability he was considered fit to continue in service but was released from service on 20 -1 -1947. On 4 -6 -1949, the character of the petitioner was assessed as Good as stated in his discharge certificate. The petitioner could not complete service for earning pension nor he was granted disability pension as the authorities took the decision that the disability was not attributable to military service conditions. The petitioner appealed against this decision on 25 -2 -1949 to the Appeal Tribunal but of no avail. The petitioner made a representation dated 4 -11 -1989 (Annexure P -1). After reminders the Army Medical Corps sent a reply on 6 -12 -1990 (Annexure P -2) rejecting the claim of the petitioner for disability pension. He made another representation on 12 -1 -1991 (Annexure P -3), to which a final reply rejecting the petition was given by the Headquarters Central Command, Lucknow on 23 -4 -1991 (Annexure P -4). The petitioner has filed the present petition for the grant of disability pension as referred to above.

(2.) NOTICE in the case was issued and case was admitted on 3 -11 -1992. Written statement has been filed by the respondent, in which preliminary objection has been taken that the petitioner was released on 20 -1 -1947 and the writ petition having been filed after more than 45 years, is required to be dismissed on that ground alone. Besides, it is contended that the petitioner had not approached this Court with clean hands and in view of Defence Service Regulations 592 and 595. the pension documents are retained only for 25 years and thereafter the same were to be destroyed. The petitioner knew that the documents in the present case had been destroyed much earlier and he had approached this Court in 1992. Thus he was not entitled to equitable relief in the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Besides, it is also contended that at that time of release of the petitioner from service the disability pension was not a condition of service and he was not entitled to any such pension. On merits, it is accepted that as per records available the petitioner was enrolled in the Army on 9 -8 -1941 and was released from service on 20 -1 -1947. Facts regarding assessment of disability of 30% by Medical Board cannot be verified due to non -availability of medical documents. The other material aspects have also been denied due to non -availability of medical documents.

(3.) IT is, however, to be seen whether petitioner is indeed entitled to the grant of disability pension. The petitioner has placed reliance on the provisions of Para 164 -A of the Defence Service Regulation read with Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulation of the Army 1961 Part -1. Besides, he has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case titled Darshan Singh v. Union of India, 1986 (3) Services Law Reporter 451 (P & H), which was also a case of loss of eye sight. The learned counsel for the respondent has referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sardar Ram Singh v. Union of India, CWP No. 14096 of 1995, decided on 15 -3 -1996 and also the case of Lt. Col. Balwant Singh v. Union of India reported in 2001 (4) Services Law Reporter 780, to contend that the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of disability pension.