SEPOY RAM KARAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed validity of order said to have been passed by the Commanding Officer, 9 JAT, Army Headquarter, New Delhi, whereby he has been discharged from service. IN the alternative, the petitioner has sought direction to grant him disability pension as recommended by the medical Board.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was recruited and inducted as an Infantry Soldier (GD) on 12. 12. 86. At the time of his enrollment, he was subjected to the medical examination by the Military doctors and he was found fit in all respect in medical category `a' (AYE ). While in service, the petitioner suffered from conjunctivitis in both the eyes. After due examination, the medical board placed the petitioner in the lower medical category CEE (Temporary) for a period of 3 months w. e. f. 3. 8. 91. The placement of the petitioner in the aforesaid category was approved by the higher authorities on 7. 8. 91. After expiry of period of 3 months, the petitioner was again brought before the Medical Board wherein the petitioner's medical category was lowered to Cat `cee' (Permanent) and it was indicated in the report that the final medical category would be decided later on and recommendation was made for next medical board to be held on 3. 11. 93. However, before the Medical Board could be held as aforesaid, the petitioner was called by the Commanding Officer under whom he was serving at the relevant time and asked about his willingness for further service and/or to accept alternate appointment commensurate with his low medical category to which the petitioner replied in affirmative. The petitioner was once again reviewed by Classified Specialist in Opthalmology who vide her summary and opinion dated 21. 4. 92 indicated the petitioner's medical category as Cat `cee' (Permanent) with more than 20% of the disability for `excessive ACCOMMODATION BOTH EYES (367)'. However, according to the petitioner, he was never declared unfit for further service. However, instead of extending alternate appointment commensurate with his low medical category, the petitioner was discharged from service w. e. f. 17. 6. 92 in terms of Rule 13 (3) of the Army Rules, 1954 (in short `the Rules of 1954') on the ground set out in clause III (v) under column 2 of the table given below the Rule 13 of the Rules of 1954. No order as such discharging the petitioner from service was served upon him, however, the discharge certificate dated 17. 6. 92 (Annexure-5) has been issued to the petitioner. The representation of the petitioner against the discharge order was rejected vide order dated 3. 1. 94 (Annexure P/11 ). The claim for disability pension of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 31. 8. 92 and the appeal preferred against the denial of the disability pension was also rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 11. 1. 94 as barred by time. Hence, this petition.

(3.) I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.