SHAM LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner a retired Lieutenant Colonel in Army bearing No. IC 23506 was seriously injured in 1971 Indo-Pak war, inasmuch as, in an effort to attack the enemy post he sustained three arty shells splinter at his left hip joint. One of the splinter being abnormally large is embedded deep in his hip joint. The petitioner retired in March, 1994 whereafter his Medical Board was held in Jaipur (Rajasthan). Medical Board after assessing and evaluating the petitioner awarded 30% disability for a period of two years viz. from 01.04.1994 to 06.03.1996. Communication dated 30.01.1996 was sent by the Government of India to the Chief of the Army Staff, New Delhi, in which it was stated that President of India was pleased to give 30% disability to the petitioner. After the expiry of 1st Medical Board. Re-survey Medical Board (RSMB) was held at Medical Hospital (MH) Jammu on 05.06.1996 and degree of disability was assessed as 30% for the period of five years i.e. from 07.03.1996 to 04.06.2001. On the basis of earlier Medical Board and sanction issued by the competent authority, Medical Advisor Pension (MAP) allowed disability @ 30% for a period of five years. The disability was reduced to 20% in terms of communication dated 23.07.1996.

(2.) Petitioner feeling aggrieved of the said decision of the respondents approached the competent authority by filing representations. When petitioner's grievances were not redressed, he ultimately appealed the Government of India on 10.02.2010. Petitioner was assessed and evaluated by re-Medical Board on 24.08.2007 and the Board assessed 30% disability on the same date and was latter approved by the Chief of the Army Staff vide letter No. 12681/T-6/AC/MP-5(b) dated 19.08.2008 and petitioner ever-since has been receiving 30% disability as war injury pension. Petitioner's claim for grant of 30% disability from 07.03.1997 to 23.08.2007 was not considered even on the face of 30% disability assessed by re-Medical Board. Petitioner when his aforementioned grievance was not redressed was constrained to file this petition.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Considered the matter.