EX HAVALDAR BABU SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was boarded-out on medical grounds from the regular army service where he was serving in the rank of Havaldar in the Corps of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering, is aggrieved at the action of respondent No.2 whereby his disability has been reduced from 50% to 30% for the purpose of continuation of his disability pension beyond 28th March, 2002. The petitioner has accordingly sought a direction to the respondents to grant disability pension for life on the basis of 50% disability as assessed by the Re-Survey Medical Board. The facts may be stated in a narrow compass. The petitioner was enrolled in army on 2nd October, 1963 and was invalidated out on 9th December, 1993 after having been found medically unfit for further service.

(2.) The petitioner was found suffering from two disabilities:- (i) Mine Blast injuries; and (ii) Neurosis (post traumatic). Since the disabilities were held to be attributable to the military service by the Medical Board and on a composite assessment of both the disabilities, the petitioner's disability was assessed to be 50%, he was granted the disability pension accordingly. For the purpose of assessing the petitioner's eligibility for the said pension beyond 28th March, 2002, he was brought before Re-Survey Medical Board on 7th December, 2001 at Military Hospital, Ambala. The Re-survey Medical Board, upon assessment of the disabilities, i.e. (i) Mine Blast injuries 30%; and (ii) Neurosis (post traumatic) 20%, recommended a composite 50% disability for life. The petitioner's case was then sent to the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (PCDA) at Allahabad for processing vide EMA Records letter dated 16th January, 2002. The PCDA, however, in consultation with the Medical Advisor (Pensions), formed a view that the second disability suffered by the petitioner, namely, Neurosis (post traumatic) stood reduced, therefore, it made the composite assessment of 30% disability for life and granted the disability pension to the petitioner beyond 28th March, 2002 as per that assessment. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that once the validly constituted Medical Board, on composite re- assessment of both the disabilities, found the petitioner suffering with 50% disability for life, the PCDA, Allahabad could not have sit over the opinion and findings of the said medical board in order to deprive the petitioner of the disability pension on the basis of 50% disability. It is contended that neither the Medical Advisor (Pensions) of the PCDA possessed any superior specialized qualifications over and above the Re-Survey Medical Board nor the petitioner was medically examined by the said Medical Advisor. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon a series of judgments rendered by this court from time to time including:- (i) Manjinder Singh v. Union of India & Ors., 2001(3) RSJ 84; (ii) Havaldar Ram Phal v. union of India & Ors., 2003(2) RSJ 228; (iii) Ramesh Kumar Sharma v. Union of India & Ors., 2004(2) RSJ 116; and (iv) Satpal Singh v. Union of India & Ors., (CWP No.15445 of 2003) decided on 26.9.2005. It is apparent from the reading of these judgments that this Court has consistently held that the PCDA, Allahabad cannot sit over the opinion and recommendations of the Re-Survey Medical Board and disability pension has to be granted on the basis of recommendations of the Re-Survey Medical Board only. It can be further seen that the above said view has been taken by this Court relying upon an order dated 14th January, 1993 passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no.164 of 1993, Ex-Sapper Mohinder Singh v. Union of India, which reads as follows:-