SURMUKH SINGH EX HAVILDAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the matter in issue is fully covered by Ex. Sapper Mohinder Singh v. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 164 of 1993, decided on 14.1.1993, Ex Capt. Harbhajan Singh v. Secretary Ministry of Defence, Government of India, 1997(1) R.S.J. 340, Sq. Ldr. G.S. Cheema v. Union of India and Ors., 1991(1) R.S.J. 64 and Bahadur Singh v. Union of India, 1999(1) S.C.T. 342, the writ petition is being disposed of today itself with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner joined the Indian Army on 2.6.1979 and was duly promoted as Havildar. In the year 1994, the petitioner had suffered some eye disease and was down graded to medical category 'CEE' for six months, which was again extended for another period of six months. The petitioner also underwent treatment in various Institutions but as there was no improvement in his condition, he was vide order of the Invaliding Medical Board, boarded out of military service on 28.2.1995 with his disability assessed at 40%. The petitioner's case along with the connected medical record, was forwarded to the CCDA(P) Allahabad for the sanction of disability pension. This claim was, however, rejected by the CCDA(P), Allahabad vide order dated 13.11.1995. Annexure P-3 to the petition, on the ground that the authority had found that the disability was less than 20%, which disentitled the petition on the award of disability pension. The petitioner thereafter filed various appeals and representations but as no result was forthcoming, he filed Civil Writ Petition No. 4874 of 1997 praying that this Court issue a direction that the appeals filed by him be decided. This petition was disposed of with the observations that the respondents had not been given sufficient time to decide the appeal and that in case the appeal was not decided within the next six months, the petitioner would be at liberty to file a fresh petition. It is not disputed that the appeal has still not been decided. The petitioner has accordingly come to this Court by way of the present Writ Petition.

(3.) On notice of motion, the respondents have filed the reply and it has been admitted that the petitioner's disease had been found to be attributable to military service and the Invaliding Medical Board had assessed it at 40% but as the CCDA (P), Allahabad had found the disability to less than 20%, the petitioner's claim to a disability pension was not tenable in the light of Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army 1961.