EX Vs. THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was granted Short Service Commission in the Indian Army on September 3, 1977, and was released on October 31, 1982, after the completion of service period. At the time of release, a Release medical board was held, which found the petitioner in the lower medical category H3 permanent with 20% disability. The disability was Sensory Neural Deafness (Bilateral). The Release Medical Board proceedings were singed by the president of the Medical Board arid approved by the approving authority and also confirmed by the Deputy Director, Medical Services, on October 30,1982. The duration of this disability was for a period of two years, meaning thereby that the petitioner was to be medically re-examined by the Resurvey Medical Board lifter two years. It may be observed here that the petitioner was aJso found suffering from "PULMONARY EOSINOPHILLA' at the time of his release. A letter dated December 5,1983, was addressed by the Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Defence, to the Chief of Army Staff (copy Annexure P4), in which it was mentioned that Sensory Neural deafness, from which the petitioner was found suffering at the time on his release from service, should be regarded as attributable to Military service, and the degree of disablement was assessed at less than 20% for the period from October 31, 1982 (the date of release from service) to October 1,1984 (two years from the date on which the Release Medical Board was held). The other disease i.e. Pulmonary Eosinophilla was held matter attributable nor aggravated by Military service. It was further mentioned that as the degree of disablement was less than 20% the petitioner was not entitled to any disability pension. Though the Resurvey Medical Board was to be held immediately after October 1, 1984, i.e. two years of the initial Release Medical Board, yet the Resurvey Medical Board was not held and it was only vide letter dated February 24, 1986, that the respondent- authorities wrote to Military Authorities at Jalandhar Cantt, for for convening afresh a Resurvey Medical Board in the Hospital. It was further mentioned that the proceedings of the Resurvey Medical Board be sent to the Head Quarters. The classified specialist B & T Department of Military Hospital, Jalandhar Cantt, after examining the petitioner opened that the deterioration was due to natural progression of the disease and there petitioner was brought before the Resurvey Medical Board. Thereafter the petitioner addressed many letters to the concerned authorities that it should be made known to him as to when the proceedings of the Resurvey Medical Board were sent to the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension Allahabad (in short 'C.C.D.A.(P)') and other concerned quarters so that he may be released his disability pension. The Military Hospital, Jalandhar Cantt, informed the petitioner on February 13,1987, that the Resurvey Medicai Board proceedings were submitted to the HQ HP&PH Area (Medical) for their approval and further disposal on March 20, 1986, and the Medical Board papers were further submitted to C.C.D.A.(P) by HQ HP&PH Area (Medical) vide letter dated April 3,1986. Since no action was taken on the basis of the opinion of Resurvey Medical Board despite repeated reminders by the petitioner on the subject till the filing of the writ petition, he filed the present writ petition.

(2.) In reply filed on behalf of the respondents it has been admitted that the Release Medical Board had assessed disability of the petitioner at 20% for two years but the Director General, Armed Forces (Medical Services) had assessed the disablement at less than 20% for two years. To the averments of the petitioner regarding no action having been taken on the Resurvey Medical Board opinion, it has been averred in para 10 of the written statement as under :-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that even if the CCDA. (P.) had reduced the disability to less than 20% by disagreeing with the opinion of the Resurvey Medical Board, which had opined 20% disability, the same could not be kept in vogue for a period of 10 years. The petitioner should have been brought again before the Resurvey Medical Board after another period of two years as was it required to be done initially after the initial Release Medical Board.