DILIP KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this writ petition, petitioner has prayed to quash the order dtd. 28/8/2014 (Annexure 15), whereby the competent authority has declined Disability Pension to the petitioner on the ground that his primary hypertension is not attributable nor aggravated by any military service. Further, he has prayed to quash the order dtd. 27/1/2016, passed by the First Appellate Authority, whereby his first appeal against rejection of disability pension was rejected. Further, he has also challenged the order dtd. 14/7/2017 passed by the Second Appellate Authority, who also rejected the second appeal of the petitioner. Further prayer has been made to pay the petitioner the Disability Pension, which he is entitled to.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the only ground taken by the respondent authority to deny the claim of the petitioner is that the disability (which is hypertension in this case) does not have close time association or proximity with his service, hence, he is not entitled for the benefit. It is his case that admittedly the petitioner is suffering from hypertension, which is a disability, as per the Rules. Further, admittedly, the hypertension had occurred during his service period. It naturally has to be considered that it had developed during service period and stress arising out of service is the prime cause for the same and that being so, respondents cannot deny the benefit of disability pension to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is getting all other benefits, which the other personnel get on retirement/superannuation. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents in Counter Affidavit came up with different grounds for non-payment of Disability Pension and such ground is not mentioned in the impugned order. The grounds, which have not been mentioned in the impugned order cannot be made applicable for denying the petitioner the benefits of Disability Pension.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India argued that the petitioner was not discharged from service on the ground of disability or physical illness. Discharge of the petitioner was by way of punishment and as the petitioner was discharged by way of punishment, he is not entitled to get Disability Pension. He submits that to get the benefit of Disability Pension, one has to be discharged from service only on account of disability and none else. In this case, since the petitioner was discharged from service on the ground of misconduct, he is not entitled to get Disability Pension.