DWARKA NATH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner stood boarded out from the Army on 25 -5 -1988 on medical grounds. He was invalided from service on account of disability which was about 20% by invoking Regulation 173. He was denied disability pension on account of disability which was not attributable to or aggravated by military service. It impelled the petitioner to file writ petition before this Honble Court. The Honble court directed the respondents to grant disability pension to the petitioner. Vide Order dated 12 -8 -2002, disability pension was granted to the petitioner after assessing the same at 30%. It seems that the Review Medical Board was constituted to re - assess the disability of petitioner. The said Review Medical Board recommended that disability of petitioner was 00% , as a result of which respondents issued order on 23 -2 -2004 rejecting his claim for disability pension for life. It is this order, which is the subject matter of challenge before this court.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Before adverting to the controversy involved in this writ petition, this court vide its order dated 17 -7 -2008 directed that the petitioner be examined and medically checked up from a civil Medical Board and accordingly the matter was referred to the Superintendent, Government Medical College, Jammu, who constituted the Medical Board for re - examination of the petitioner.

(3.) IN pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the court, Medical Board has submitted its report on 30 -12 -2008. Report of the Medical Board reveals that the petitioner requires investigation by the Neurologist and Radiologist/ Clinical Psychologist who decide the exact disability percentage and the status. History and clinical report of the petitioner has also been perused by the board members. They have shown their inability to submit their opinion regarding diagnosis and determination of disability. In essence, the Medical Board has stated that unless the opinion is given by Neurologist and Psychologist, it is not possible to assess the disability of the petitioner. This is the one aspect of the matter.