EX SEP NIRVEL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Nirvel Singh, petitioner, had joined the Indian Army on 31.1.1988 after he was found to be fit and had been placed in medical category AYE. On 27th of March, 1994, the Invalidating Medical Board placed him in medical category "EEE". According to the Medical Board, he was suffering from 60 per cent disability for life. Despite this, he was not granted disability pension on the ground that the disability suffered by him was not attributable to military service. The appeal filed by him was rejected, whereupon, he had served legal notice dated 29th of March, 1996 upon the respondents. When this notice did not evoke any response, the petitioner moved his Court for setting aside the view taken by the Medical Board by filing C.W.P. No. 756 of 1997, which was allowed by this Court on 14th July, 1999, with the following directions :-

(2.) In the written statement, though a preliminary objection was raised regarding the territorial jurisdiction, the same pales into insignificance in view of the fact that the claim of the parties having already been adjudicated upon in earlier C.W.P. No. 756 of 1997, the bar of territorial jurisdiction cannot be raised by the respondents. On facts, the respondents admitted that the disability of the petitioner remains 20 per cent for life but assert that the same is neither attributed to nor aggravated by military service. The respondents seek to rely upon the statement made by the petitioner during the proceedings of the Medical Board initially that he had, in November 1993, been involved in a scooter accident and on reaching the house he had started vomiting and since then he had headache (frontal right side) which is dull and constant. The respondents admit that this Court had, while deciding C.W.P. No. 756 of 1997 ordered re-examination of the petitioner and submit that the same having been done, the Medical Board was still of the opinion that the invaliding disease from which the petitioner suffers is constitutional in nature and not attributable to military service and, therefore, have rejected the claim of the petitioner. The writ petition consequently, in view of the respondents, was devoid of merit and had to be dismissed.

(3.) I have heard Mr. J.S. Bhatti, on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. M.S. Guglani, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, on behalf of the respondents and have gone through the record of the case.