Punjab-Haryana High Court
No.2447357 Ex-Sepoy Joginder Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 2 May, 2012
Author: T.P.S. Mann
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 22740 of 2011
Date of Decision : May 02, 2012
No.2447357 Ex-Sepoy Joginder Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Mr. Angad Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
T.P.S. MANN, J.
By way of the present petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.5.2011 passed by the Chandigarh Regional Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') whereby T.A. No.827 of 2010 filed by him against the order dated 15.5.1970 passed by the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions), Allahabad declining grant of disability pension had been dismissed.
A perusal of the order dated 15.5.1970 (Annexure P-3) would reveal that the petitioner was declined disability pension as the disability was neither attributable to military service nor he had established that it existed before or arose during military service or aggravated thereby. Civil Writ Petition No. 22740 of 2011 -2-
Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute that against the order dated 15.5.1970 the petitioner had filed a civil suit which was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala on 31.8.2000. Aggrieved of the same, he filed an appeal but the same was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala on 6.3.2002. No further second appeal was filed by the petitioner. Instead, he filed the writ petition (CWP No.11166 of 2002) which after establishment of the Tribunal was transferred thereto and, accordingly, numbered as T.A. No.827 of 2010.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground of limitation and, therefore, the petitioner was justified in filing the writ petition before this Court in the year 2002. However, on perusal of the judgment passed by the first appellate Court it is apparent that findings arrived at by the trial Court on the issue of limitation was reversed. On merits, his case was considered by the first appellate Court but he was not held entitled to any relief. Under these circumstances, the petitioner could not have changed the track by filing the writ petition before this Court. Instead, he was required to file the second appeal which he did not do so and, thus, allowed the matter to become final.
Civil Writ Petition No. 22740 of 2011 -3-
It may also be worth mentioning here that before he had filed the suit on 3.6.1996 which came to be decided on 31.8.2000, the petitioner had filed an identical declaratory suit which was pending on 3.6.1996. Despite the same, the petitioner had not made any averment regarding filing of the earlier suit.
As regards the merits of the case, at the time when the petitioner was examined by the medical board, he was found with the disability "High Hypermetropia with partial Amblyopia of both eyes", which was found to be a constitutional disorder. The disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Under these circumstances, the respondents were justified in declining to grant disability pension to the petitioner.
Resultantly, there is no merit in the writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.
(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) (T.P.S. MANN ) May 02, 2012 JUDGE JUDGE satish