EX RFN IQBAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer made by the petitioner in the instant petition is for quashing order dated 29.9.2001(Annexure P-2) passed by the Controller of Defence Accounts(Pension) and also the order dated 21.10.2003 (Annexure P-5) issued by the Director General Personal Services,respondent No.2 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for disability pension. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents to grant him disability pension with effect from the date he was invalidated out of service with interest at the rate of 12 per annum.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was enrolled in the Army as Rifleman on 15.10.1993. At the time of his entry into service, he was subjected to medical examination and was declared fit as no physical or mental disorder was detected. The petitioner started suffering from mental disturbance and epiliptic seizure, which led to the convening of medical Board. On 4.2.2000, he was medically examined and it was declared that he was suffering from Generalized Seizures BEE V-67. A copy of the order has been placed on record as Annexure (P-1). Accordingly, the petitioner was boarded out of service and the certificate dated 4.2.2000 shows that the disability suffered by the petitioner was attributable to and aggravated by the Military Serviced. The petitioner applied for grant of disability pension, which has been rejected on 29.9.2001 by respondent No.4 on the ground that the disease was constitutional in nature and it was neither attributable not aggravated by Army service. The appeal filed by him was also rejected by respondent No.2 on 21.10.2003.

(3.) The respondents has filed written statement and in para No.1, the stand taken is that the petitioner does not fulfill the minimum conditions for grant of disability pension as per the requirement of Regulation 173 of Pension Regulation for the Army 1961. According to respondent, disability of the petitioner was assessed at 20 % as is evident from the perusal of para 4 of the reply. It has also been asserted that the petitioner has been paid numerous monetary benefits on his discharge, which are as under:-