SHYAM CHANDRA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ application for quashing the order dated 23.8.75 passed by the. respondent No. 2 Commandant, Bihar Regimental Centre, Dinapur Cant, Danapur and issued under the signature of respondent No. 3 by which the petitioner's claim for disability pension has been rejected and the order dated 23rd June, 1977 by which the petitioner has been informed that his appeal has not been considered because it is time barred. Copies of the said orders have been annexed as Annexures 1 and 2 to this writ application.

(2.) THE facts necessary for disposal of the present writ application are that the petitioner was enrolled in the Army on 20th December, 1965. On completion of training he was posted to 9, Bihar. While the petitioner was in service, he suffered ailment and it was detected that he was suffering from 'Juvenile Moderately Severe DEC. and Non Keotonic Diabetes Melditus Y 34 (150)'. The Medical Board examined the petitioner and recommended for 40% disability. However, the authorities, instead of granting 40% disability, by the impugned order dated 23.8.75 rejected the claim of disability pension. According to the petitioner, aforesaid order was not received by him as he had gone to Ranchi and was employed as a Security Man. However, later on, he came to know when he was informed by his family members, then he preferred an appeal but the same was not disposed of by the authorities on the ground that the appeal was barred by limitation. Thereafter, the petitioner met several authorities and went on writing to the officials, Ministers and Prime Minister with regard to his grievance, however, he could not receive any response except that the communication of his appeal having been rejected in the year 1977. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present writ application for seeking justice.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the ground of delay, the writ application should not be dismissed as the petitioner had been pursuing his remedy by filing petition/representation and when no heed was paid, he has filed the writ application and the petitioner is not disentitled to the relief prayed. He also submitted that the order contained in Annexure 1 has been passed behind the back of the petitioner in as much as when the medical board has found 40% disability his claim for pension should not have been rejected without hearing the petitioner. He also contended that the ground which has been given for disallowing the disability pension puts the onus on the petitioner to prove a negative fact which is not permissible in law.