Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(Annexure - 5) rejecting the petitioner's claim of full salary and/or full pension and invalid pension, as well as reimbursement of medical expenses and compassionate appointment and exemplary damages.

(ii) Issuance of declaration that so called order of proposed voluntary retirement of petitioner's husband by letter dated 11.10.1994 seeking to retire petitioner w.e.f. 10.11.2994 mentioned in pension book by letter dated 29.10.1994 w.e.f. 10.11.1994 is void and illegal being in teeth of and contrary to earlier order dated 10.10.1994 declaring petitioner's husband by medical board as medically unfit due to "PARANOID SCHIZOPHRENIA" which is a mental infirmity which permanently incapacitated him from the service in terms of Rule 38 of C.C.S. Pension Rule 1972.

(iv) Let a copy of the judgment be sent to Md. Najmul Hodda, learned counsel for the petitioner also on his email.

(v) Let steps be taken by the Sr. Secretary/registry for up-loading of the present order without compromising with the norms of social distancing."

4. Nodoubt invalid pension in services is a continuing cause of action. In other words, if the appellant made out a prima facie case that her husband was entitled to invalid pension due to "Paranoid Schizophrenia" was during the course of the employment. One of the criteria for extending invalid pension is that an employee must have suffered certain disability during the course of employment. The appellant has not apprised this Court that her husband suffered the aforesaid disability so as to extend invalid pension with reference to the factual aspects of the matter that deceased employee suffered the aforesaid disability during the course of the employment. In the absence of material information and recording by the competent authority that the deceased suffered "Paranoid Schizophrenia" during the course of the duty, the appellant is not entitled to have the benefit of invalid pension on behalf of deceased husband - Naik (NK) Tej Bahadur Singh.