Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ex-Subedar Jasmail Singh vs Union Of India on 5 December, 2000
Author: R.L. Anand
Bench: R.L. Anand
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J.
1. Shri Jasmail Singh petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other writ order or direction which this Court may deem appropriate and he has prayed for the quashment of the order Annexure P-1 vide which his claim for disability pension has been rejected by the respondent-authorities. The petitioner has further made a prayer that direction be given to the respondents to release him the benefit of disability pension with effect from 1.8.1996.
2. The case set up by the petitioner is that he was enrolled in the army service on 24.7.1968. He was found medically fit at the time of his enrolment. He was boarded out/discharged from the service on 31.7.1996 and his disability was assessed at 20 per cent. The reason for boarding out from the service is 'Hypertension'. According to the petitioner, this disease is attributable to the army service, therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of disability pension which has been rejected by the respondents vide order dated 7.2.1997. The petitioner filed an appeal which was rejected on 15.4.1999 after the filing of the present writ petition.
3. Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. Reply was filed. In para No. 1 of the written statement it has been admitted by the respondents that the petitioner was enrolled in the army on 24.7.1968 and he was discharged from the service on 31.7.1996 under Army Rule 13(3), The petitioner was released from service in low medical category B permanent on account of his being suffering from Primary Hypertension 40%. It was also pleaded by the respondents that the disability of the petitioner was assessed at 20% permanent by the Release/Medical Board held at Military Hospital Ambala Cantt on 27.12.1995 and it was also determined by the Medical Board that the disease has been aggravated by stress and strain of military service. However, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the CCDA (Pension) Allahabad who was of the opinion that the disease was not attributable to the army service and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the disability pension.
4. I have heard Shri B.S. Sehgaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri S.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case.
5. The sole point for determination in this case whether the disease of the petitioner is attributable to the army service and whether the claim of the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the CCDA.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the opinion of the Board is not binding on the CCDA which is a statutory authority and, therefore, if the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the CCDA, the petitioner has no cause of action.
7. On the contrary, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that CCDA had no opportunity to physically examine the petitioner. In the present case the Release Medical Board had categorically stated that the disease suffered by the petitioner is on account of stress and strain and, therefore, the opinion of the Medical Board should prevail and the opinion of the CCDA cannot be held to be a valid one.
8. There is merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner was found medically fit at the time of his enrolment in the army. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner was suffering from stress and strain when he was serving the army. The Medical Board also gave the opinion to that effect. CCDA never examined the petitioner before giving its opinion. Even the medical authority which is for the assistance of the CCDA did not call upon the petitioner to appear before it so as to formulate any opinion with regard to the disease suffered by the petitioner.
9. In this view of the matter, I reject the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents and accept the contention of the counsel opposite. As the disability suffered by the petitioner is 20% and which is attributable to the army service, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of disability pension with effect from 1.8.1996. Directions are given to the respondents to release the benefit of the disability pension to the petitioner within three months from the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the petitioner shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent. There shall be no order as to costs. The petitioner shall appear before the Re-survey Medical Board as and when called upon by the respondent-authorities.
10. Petition allowed.