Punjab-Haryana High Court
No.14511719 Ex Havildar Khajan Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 27 October, 2009
Author: Permod Kohli
Bench: Permod Kohli
CWP No.16346 of 2009 :1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of decision: 27.10.2009
No.14511719 Ex Havildar Khajan Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI
Present: Mr.Navdeep Singh, Advocate.
Ms. Geeta Singhwal, Advocate.
PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral):
Notice of motion.
On the asking of the Court, Ms. Geeta Singhwal, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. A complete set of paper-book has been supplied to her.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard for final disposal.
The petitioner joined the Indian Army on 22.12.1972 in Medical Category AYE SHAPE-1. In the year 1984 he developed disease of Essential Hypertension. The disease was declared as aggravated due to stress and strain of military service in field by the Release Medical Board on 23.11.1990 (Annexure P-1). The petitioner requested for disability pension which was rejected vide order dated 04.10.1991 (Annexure P-2). The appeal filed by the petitioner was also rejected vide order dated 11.1.1993 (Annexure P-3) on the ground that the disease was neither attributable or aggravated by military service. The petitioner made a CWP No.16346 of 2009 :2 number of requests to the respondents to reconsider his case for disability pension, but to no avail. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming 30 per cent disability which was attributable and aggravated by military service.
Similar issue came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the cases of Ex-Subedar Jasmail Singh Vs. Union of India and others, 2006 (2) Law Herald, 1480 and in CWP No.91 of 2007 (No.13733810-H EX-HAV Hira Singh Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 25.02.2009.
It is agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgments wherein the following observations are made:-
"Merely saying that the matter had been adjudicated by an authority having competent jurisdiction would not serve the purpose in law. So as to assess that the disease was constitutional (as held by the PCDA (P) and not aggravated by military service (as opined by the Release Medical Board on Physical examination of the petitioner), reasons had to be assigned and that too after examination of the petitioner by some higher medical board. The PCDA (P) had no legal authority, in facts or in law, to sit over the judgment of the experts in the medical line, without making any reference to a detailed or higher medical board. In this view of the matter, CWP No.16346 of 2009 :3 the case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and as followed by a Division Bench of this Court as noticed above.
The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. The petitioner would be allowed disability pension at the rate of 20% from the date of his discharge." The disability of the petitioner has been assessed at 30 percent and is stated to be attributed and aggravated by the army service. The petitioner is, thus, entitled to disability pension with his disability at 30 percent. However, the arrears shall be restricted to three years preceding to the filing of the writ petition.
With the aforesaid observations, present petition is allowed with no order as to costs.
27.10.2009 (PERMOD KOHLI)
BLS JUDGE
Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO