Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Union Of India And Others vs No.2694471 In Ex.Gdr Surender Singh on 23 December, 2010

Author: Ritu Bahri

Bench: Ritu Bahri

Letters Patent Appeal No.1829 of 2010 (O&M)                   1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                                      LPA No.1829 of 2010 (O&M)
                                      Date of Decision: 23.12.2010


Union of India and others                         ..Appellants

Versus

No.2694471 In Ex.Gdr Surender Singh               ..Respondent


CORAM :      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR
             HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI


Present:-    Ms. Renu Bala Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.


1.           To be referred to the Reporters or not?

2.           Whether the judgment should be reported in
             the Digest?


M.M.KUMAR, J.

The Instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 4.3.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the writ petitioner-respondent would be examined by a Medical Board within four months and he would be allowed disability pension. The aforesaid directions have been issued because the writ- petitioner respondent met with an accident and suffered injuries leading to his disability. However, his claim for disability pension was rejected on the ground that the disease for which he was invalidated out from service was not attributable to military service. Placing reliance on various Division Bench Judgments of this Court including the case of Pooja and another vs. Union of India & others, 2009(1) SCT 491, the learned Single Judge has granted benefit holding that the matter was covered in favour of the writ petitioner-respondent.

Letters Patent Appeal No.1829 of 2010 (O&M) 2

Having heard learned counsel and particularly in view of the fact that she has not been able to point out the distinguishing features of the facts of the present case than the one rendered by a Division Bench in Pooja case (supra), we find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly the same is dismissed. In view of the fact that we have dismissed the appeal on merit, we do not feel the necessity of passing an order on the application seeking condonation of the delay of 625 days.

( M.M.KUMAR ) JUDGE ( RITU BAHRI ) 23.12.2010 JUDGE VK