Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajmer Singh (Ex. Sigmn) vs Union Of India on 29 September, 2000
Author: Mehtab S. Gill
Bench: Mehtab S. Gill
JUDGMENT Mehtab S. Gill, J.
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders Annexures P2, P3 and P7, by which disability pension has been refused to him. He seeks a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing said orders and also a writ of Mandamus for directing the respondent to grant him disability pension.
2. It is alleged by the petitioner that he was enrolled in the Indian Army on 2.5.1972 after having been found medically fit by the Recruiting Officer at Ludhiana. Unfortunately, during service he fell sick and was sent for treatment in the medical hospital where he remained admitted. His disease was diagnosed as Neurosis. Ultimately he was discharged on 26.4.1978 after remanding (remaining ?) 5 years and 360 days of service in the army. The disability pension was not granted to him on the ground that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by the military service.
3. In the written statement, the averments of the petitioner have been denied. It has been pleaded that the Invaliding Board neither considered the disability of the petitioner as attributable to military service nor aggravated by the military service. Rather, the same was considered to be a constitutional disorder not connected with the military service.
4. In the replication, the petitioner has reiterated his own claim and denied the averments of the respondents.
5. I have heard Mr. B.S. Sehgal, Advocate, for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Rathee, Additional Senor Standing Counsel for the respondents and carefully perused the paper book.
6. The only contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the instant case is fully covered by the ratio of judgment dated 10.7.2000 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.L. Anand in 681046 B. Sergeant Satnam Singh Bajwa versus Union of India and others. The Hon'ble Judge after considering the rival contentions of the parties and examining the case law, allowed the writ petition and granted disability pension to the petitioner of that case. Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents has not advanced any argument and has rather candidly concealed that this case is fully covered by the judgment in 681046 B. Sergeant Satnam Singh Bajwa's case (supra).
7. In the light of above discussion, this writ petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted the relief a5 claimed for by him. The orders impugned in this writ petition are quashed and directions are issued to the respondents to release the disability pension of the petitioner with effect from the date the same became due within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12%. No order as to costs. The petitioner shall, however, appear before the Re-Survey Medical Board, if called upon by the respondents.
8. Petition allowed.