BHUP SINGH EX-SEPOY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was enrolled as a Sepoy in the Army Supply Corps on 6.11.1965 after having been found physically fit as per the form of enrolment filled up at that time. The petitioner thereafter served at various locations as a motor Transport Driver from 6.11.1965 to 27.7.1974. He was, however, discharged from service on 27.7.1974 with the remarks" Services no - longer required" as he had been put in low category "CEE" permanent with effect from 18.12.1973. The petitioner was accordingly boarded out on the recommendation of the Medical Board vide discharge slip, Annexure P-2. The petitioner thereafter submitted a claim for disability pension to the Controller of Defence Accounts (P) Allahabad but this was rejected on the ground that the Release Medical Board had found that his disease was not attributable to or aggravated by military service. It appears from the written statement that the appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. The petitioner nevertheless persisted with his claim and addressed communications dated 13.3.1996, 22.4.1996 and 10.6.1996, Annexures P-3 to P-5, claiming the benefit of disability pension. He was, however, informed vide Annexure P-6 dated 19.6.1996 that his claim for disability pension as also the appeal filed by him had already been rejected and as such no further action could be taken on the fresh applications that he had made. The petitioner, however, still continued to raise a dispute and he was finally intimated vide Annexure P-8, dated 27.7.1996 that as his claim had already been rejected twice over, the decisions taken could not be altered. The petitioner thereafter filed various representations claiming that the orders rejecting his claim had not been supplied to him but having received no satisfactory reply, has come to this Court.

(2.) On notice of motion, a reply has been filed by the respondents. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been boarded out of military service in low medical category 'CEE' (Permanent) with effect from 18.12.1973 on the opinion of the Release Medical Board, Annexure R-1 dated 7.7.1974. It has also been pleaded that the petitioner's claim had been rejected by the Medical Advisor (Pension), Allahabad as the petitioner's disability was not considered attributable to or aggravated by military service. It has also been pointed out that the appeal preferred by the petitioner had been rejected in the year 1975 and a further appeal in the year 1980. It has also been pleaded that Paragraph 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 Part I (hereinafter called the Regulations), postulated that disability pension was to be granted to an individual, who had been invalided out of service on account of disability, which was attributable to or aggravated by military service and had been assessed at 20% or above and as the petitioner was suffering from Compound Hypermetropic Astigamatism LT, eye which was a constitutional disease, the said Regulation could not be applied to his case. The respondents have relied upon a large number of Judgments in their support. It has also been pleaded that the petitioner's claim was liable to be defeated on account of laches as the petitioner's claim for disability pension had been initially rejected in the year 1974 but he had chosen to come to this Court in the year 1997.

(3.) A replication has been filed by the petitioner controverting the respondents stand and reiterating his own.