SHRIPAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was recruited as a Sepoy in the army on 1.4.1975. In the year 1988, he was promoted as Hawaldar. During his service, he was attached with Rajputana Rifles Battalion, Head Quarter at Delhi Cantt. In the year 1993, he was posted at Labha, Darjeeling, West Bengal, where he started having re-lapses of Psoriasis Vulgaris (a skin disease). After hospitalisation for two weeks, he was discharged. In 1995, the disease re- surfaced and the petitioner was referred to the Medical Board. The Board recorded its finding regarding the nature and origin of the disease and recommended that the petitioner be placed in lower medical category "CEE" for 6/12 years. The petitioner was advised to get himself medically checked up every month. In May, 1997, the petitioner claims that he was discharged from the Army service on medical grounds and at that time the Medical Board assessed his disability to be more than 20%. The case of the petitioner for disability pension was rejected by the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad (in short "C.C.D.A.(P), Allahabad") vide letter No. GR 3/62/53/3/97 dated 25.5.1997 on the ground that the disability suffered by him was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. This information was communicated to the petitioner through Annexure P2. It is this communication and the order of the C.C.D.A. (P), Allahabad rejecting the recommendations of the Medical Board that the petitioner challenges by way of this writ petition.

(2.) In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, the plea that was taken was that the petitioner had been discharged from the army as per Item 13(3)(iii) of Army Rules, 1954 after he had rendered 21 years and sixteen days of service. In view of this, he was granted service pension and because the disability suffered by the petitioner was neither attributable to nor aggravated by the military service, no disability pension was granted. The Board was of the opinion that the disability was due to the constitutional disease and, thus, not relatable to army service but the claim of the petitioner for the disability pension was forwarded to the sanctioning authority i.e. C.C.D.A.(P), Allahabad along with the proceedings of the Board and other connected documents. The decision of the C.C.D.A.(P), Allahabad, in these circumstances, suffered from no infirmity and, therefore, the writ should be dismissed as the case of the petitioner did not fall within Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for Army 1961. It is further clarified that acceptance or rejection of disability pension claim is submitted to the competent Medical Authority (Pension) (in short "M.A.(P)") attached to the office of C.C.D.A.(P), Allahabad, appointed by the Director General of Armed Forces Medical Services, New Delhi, the Principal Controller for bringing uniformity of Entitlement Rules. The M.A.(P) under Rule 17 b of Entitlement Rule 1981 has the power to review and revise the recommendations of the Board, which was done in the present case.

(3.) On the point of fact, it was clarified in the written statemen that the decree of disability of the petitioner as assessed by the Invaliding Board was found to be 30% for two years and not 20% as stated by the petitioner. It was submitted that since the disability was not attributable to or aggravated by the military service, therefore, the C.C.D.A.(P), Allahabad-respondent No. 2 had rejected the papers for the grant of disability pension.