MAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner entered in the services of Union of India being enrolled with Central Reserve Police Force on 7.7.1956. On enrolment the petitioner was inducted to XV Battalion Central Reserve Police Force which is now known as 61 Battalion CRPF.

(2.) The petitioner was sent for examination of medical fitness on 7.4.1966. The petitioner was found suffering from some ailment and, :therefore, he was sent for screening of chest and E.C.G. at victoria Hospital, Ajmer on 12.4.1966. The petitioner was directed to report to Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, Record Office, Central Reserve Police Force, Neemach for his final medical board examination on 23.4.1966. The medical examination of the petitioner by the competent medical board was conducted from 24.4.1966 to 4.5.1966. The petitioner as a consequence of recommendations made by the medical board was ordered to be invalided out of service. Accordingly the petitioner was invalidated out on medical grounds and was discharged from services w.e.f. 6.5.1966. A discharge certificate dated 25.8.1966 was subsequently issued by Commandant XV Battalion, Ajmer (now known as 61 Battalion) wherein conduct and character of the petitioner has been shown "exemplary."

(3.) The petitioner after getting discharged from services made number of requests to the respondents for grant of pension to him but to no consequence. The petitioner was communicated from the office of commandant 61 Battalion CRPF, Ludhiana (Punjab) that as per Pension Rules a Government Servant will have to complete 10 years continuous qualifying service to become eligible for civil pension. The-pension was denied to the petitioner since he had not completed 10 years qualifying services in CRPF. The petitioner thereafter made certain representations and ultimately served a notice for demand of justice through his counsel Shri S.K. Nanda, Advocate stating therein that in light of provisions of Rule 38 read with Rule 49 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1972") he is entitled for pension. No response was given to the notice referred above, hence the petitioner preferred the present writ petition before this Court.