OM PARKASH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Om Parkash, was recruited in the Border Security Force on 13.11.1978. While posted in the BSF Headquarters, he was boarded out from service on medical grounds with effect from 31.8.1994 on the report that he had developed epilepsy and was, therefore, unfit for service. The petitioner was accordingly given pension that was due on account of his length of service in terms of rule 38 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, but his claim to the grant of extraordinary pension under rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) has been denied. It is against this order that the present writ partition has been filed. The petitioner's claim is that he had contracted epilepsy during service and as his medical condition had got aggravated on account of the exigencies of service, he was entitled to the extraordinary pension as per the rules.

(2.) Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The stand taken is that the petitioner's disease had not been contracted or aggravated during military service and as such, the extraordinary pension was not payable to him. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had, in fact, been suffering from Grandmal Epilepsy since December, 1983 and he had been put in low medical category 'CEE(T)' with effect from 12.1.1984 and he was boarded out 10 years later after a thorough examination by the Medical Board as his condition had not improved. The petitioner's contention that he had contracted epilepsy due to head injury that he had suffered during service has also been denied and it has been pointed out that he, in fact, was performing static duties only as he was a wireless operator.

(3.) Mr. Rahul Rathore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has referred to rules 3, 3(A) of the Rules and the guidelines under rule 3(A) to contend that as no disease had been noted at the time of the petitioner's enrolment in service, a presumption was to be drawn that the disease had occurred during service and in that eventuality, the extraordinary pension due under the rules was payable. As against this, Mr. Rathee, the learned counsel for the Union of India has pointed out that under rule 3(A) as also under guideline 5, mentioned above, only a person who was suffering from a disease mentioned in Schedule 1-A of the Rules was entitled to extra-ordinary pension and as the petitioner did not suffer from any such disease, his claim to extra-ordinary pension was not justified.