EX Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a disabled Army Officer's aggrieved by the action of the respondents in denying him the disability pension. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner, who was a Junior Commissioned Officer, was granted a rejoinder commission as an officer on June 15,1969. He was posted at a high attitude. He developed Pulmonary Tuberculosis. He was admitted to the Military Hospital, Bareilly. He remained there as an indoor patient from August 12,1970 to January 24, 1972. During the course of his treatment the left upper lobe was exercised. On July 27, 1972, he was discharged from the Army and granted a disability pension @ Rs. 190/- per month. His case was reviewed periodically. The disability, which was initially assessed at 100% ultimately came down to 30% in the year 1979. As a result, there was reduction even in the amount of disability pension. He continued to draw pension at the lower rate till July 27,1989 when he was informed that this disability had been assessed at less than 20%. As a result, the payment of disability pension was stopped. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Central Government. Vide order dated January 31, 1992, his appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in refusing disability pension, the petitioner has approached Court through the present writ petition.

(3.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. There is no dispute regarding the factual position, as noticed above. However, from the original record, which has been produced by Mr. Vinay Mittal, learned counsel for the respondents, it has been pointed out that the petitioner was medically examined by a Board at the Military Hospital, Ambala Cantt on April 27, 1989. The Board had found the extent of disability upto 20%. This recommendation of the Board was forwarded to the Controller Defence Accounts (Pensions) at Allahabad. The Medical Adviser in the office of the Controller Defence Accounts opined that the extent of disability was 15 to 19 percent and as a result the disability pension was no longer admissible to the petitioner. On these premises, Mr. Vinay Mittal, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the petitioner was not entitled to the grant of disability pension.