RAN SINGH JAGGI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through this writ under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India prays for quashing/setting aside the decisions taken by the respondents on October 21, 1988 (Annexure PA) and 27th December, 1989 (Annexure PC) by which his claim for disability pension has been declined He also prays that direction be issued to the respondents to release his pension The facts may briefly be enumerated.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed an Airman in the Indian Air Force on September 10, 1954 and was promoted as LAC in or about. 1956 and was further promoted as Corporal in 1959. He served in the Indian Air Force till 2 -10 -1959 when he was medically found unfit and was discharged from the service on October 3, 1959. When the petitioner was recruited as an Airman, he was in perfect health and nothing either latent or patent was found in his medical examination The disability the petitioner suffered during his service in the Indian Air Force was directly attributable to such service rendered by him. 3 The petitioner was allowed disability pension till July 1988, where after the same was discontinued on the grounds that the disability was assessed less than 20%. The petitioner made representation to the authorities concerned. He was informed through communication dated 21 -10 -1988 (Annexure PA) that he is entitled to prefer an appeal against the decision of the authority within a period of 6 months. Accordingly, he submitted his appeal (Annexure PB) and the copies of the representations are placed on record (Annexures PD and PE) On April 1 % 1990 through communication (Annexure PF) endorsed to the petitioner the authority informed him that he would be allowed service element to a minimum of Rs. 375. Thereafter, the petitioner again submitted his representation and finally got issued notice under section 80 (Annexure PH) reiterating his claim but of no avail. Lastly, through communication (Annexure PJ), the petitioner requested Union of India to supply him the relevant pension regulations and he was informed through communication (Annexure PK/1) that according to the Army Order No 180/74 the pension regulation can be supplied only when prior permission has been granted by respondent No, 2 Again the petitioner immediately approached respondent Nos 2 and 3 through letters (Annexures PL, PM and PN) but of no avail. Ultimately, the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Department of Military Regulations and Rules on 19th March, 1993 (Annexure PO) informed the petitioner that he may approach the Air Headquarters directly in this regard. Again the petitioner submitted his request through communication dated 31 -3 -1993 (Annexure PP) to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for supply of Air Force Pension Regulations Part I and II, but no response was received by him. After having failed to obtain the copies from the authorities concerned, the petitioner has approached this Court for the grant of pensionary benefits as stated in the earlier part of the judgment.

(4.) This petition is contested by the respondents by filing reply on the affidavit of Shri Bennoy Andrews, Flying Officer in 25 SQN Air Force, Chandigarh. The respondents have admitted that the petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 10th September, 1954 and was classified as LAC on September 1, 1957 and not in 1956 as contended by the petitioner. It is also admitted that he was promoted to the rank of substantiate Corporal on 10 -5 1959 and he was medically boarded out on 3rd October, 1959 under the provisions of Air Force Act (Rule) Chapter III Para i3 Clause (iii) as being found medically unfit for further service in the IAF as a case of Pulmonary Tuberculosis and to be reviewed after a year. Although, in the written statement, it is admitted that the disease arose as a result of lowered resistance to infection due to stress and strain of Air Force Service and was found attributable to service and accordingly, he was awarded disability pension till July 8, J988 and ultimately the same was stopped by CDA (Pension), Allahabad when disability was reassessed as nil. It is further contended that thereafter the petitioner was not entitled for pension as he has not completed 10 years of service. He was advised to prefer a claim for special gratuity and a sum Rs 640 on that account has been remitted to the petitioner 5 We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.