DWARKA NATH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER who came to be enrolled in the Army on 4th of October, 1978, was discharged from service on 21st of August, 1981, on compassionate grounds at the request made by the petitioner. Thereafter, he was re -enrolled in the Defence Security Corps on 31st of May82, and served upto 1987, when he suffered from intense pain in the head and applied for medical leave which was granted to him. Before the petitioner could recover and join back his duties, he received a communication dated 25th of May88, from the respondents that the petitioner has been discharged from service on medical grounds. Petitioner thereafter applied to respondents for grant of disability pension, which was rejected. He filed a writ petition bearing SWP No. 2012/01, which was disposed of vide judgment dt. 27th of March02.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that after the writ petition aforementioned was allowed by this court, the respondents implemented the judgment and released service as well as disability pension in favour of the petitioner @Rs.1275/ - per month w.e.f. 1st of Jan 96, for life and Rs. 465/ - per month from the same date till the next Review Medical Board is held. It is stated that in Nov02, the petitioner was directed by respondent No.2 to appear before the Review Medical Board at Army Hospital, Satwari, Jammu, where he appeared for re -assessment of his disability and remained admitted in the hospital for three days. It is stated that the petitioner was informed that his disability has been assessed at the same rate which was at the time of his discharge.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that even though his disability was assessed at 30% at the time of his discharge and while he remained admitted in the hospital, for review of his disability by the Medical Board, he was informed that the disability has been assessed at the same rate but vide letter No. PEN/RSMB -2/7237895/152 dt. 23rd of Feb 04, the petitioner was intimated that his disability has been assessed at less than 20%, i.e. 0%, and therefore, he is not entitled for future disability pension. It is stated that during the stay of the petitioner in Military Hospital at Satwari when he was to appear before the Review Medical Board, no tests whatsoever were conducted by the said Board and he was not re -examined. It is stated that under these circumstances, lowering of the disability of the petitioner from 30% to 0% without any medical check up by the Review Medical Board and resultant denial of the disability pension is not in accordance with the rules. It is stated that in terms of Army Pension Regulation 173 -A, the army personnel who are placed in lower medical category permanently and who are discharged being non suitable to any other employment in their own trade/category, are to be granted disability pension irrespective of their percentage of disability. It is thus stated that the action of respondents in denying the disability pension to the petitioner is not in accordance with the law.