IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 34724 of 2000(H)
1. K.SIVARAMAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :23/09/2008
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
O.P. No. 34724 of 2000
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 23rd September, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was invalided out of military service in October,
1988. From then on, he was being paid disability pension. On 15-1-
1993, the petitioner was assessed as permanently disabled.
Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to appear for a further medical
examination and as per Ext. P1 report of the Medical Board dated 21-
11-1997, the petitioner’s disability was re-assessed and fixed at 20%.
The petitioner was continued to be paid disability pension till 5-1-
1998. However, by Ext. P2 dated March, 1998, the petitioner was
informed that his disability is less than 20% and therefore the
petitioner is not entitled to continued payment of disability pension.
In appeal, the same was confirmed by Ext. P4. The petitioner is
challenging Exts.P 2 and P4.
2. The contention in the counter affidavit filed by respondents
is that the Medical Board who examined the petitioner and certified
20% disability is not the final authority to determine the percentage of
disability. On the other hand, the pension sanctioning authority, in
consultation with the Joint Director of Armed Forces Medical
Services, who is attached to the Medical Advisor (Pension), has
decided that the percentage of disability is less than 20%, which is
what is to be taken into account for deciding eligibility for pension is
the contention raised by the respondents .
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
4. I am at a complete loss to understand how the Joint Director
of Armed Forces Medical Services and the Medical Advisor (Pension)
who have never seen the petitioner could decide the percentage of
disability, when a team of medical doctors of the military had
examined the petitioner and determined the percentage of disability
as 20%. No records are also produced before me to prove as to how
O.P No. 34724/2000 -: 2 :-
the Joint Director has come to the conclusion that disability assessed
by the Medical Board is wrong. That being so, I am of opinion that
the report of the Medical Board, which examined the petitioner,
should be given more weight in the circumstances. Since, by Ext. P1,
that Medical Board has assessed the petitioner’s disability at 20%,
Exts.P 2 and P4 orders are clearly unsustainable. Accordingly, the
same are quashed. The respondents are directed to continue to pay to
the petitioner disability pension as before as if he has never become
disentitled for pension. Arrears in this regard shall be paid within two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the
arrears are not paid within the said two months, the same would carry
interest at 9% p.a. from the date from which payment of pension was
stopped, till date of payment. The original petition is disposed of as
above.
Sd/S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/
O.P No. 34724/2000 -: 3 :-
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=–=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
O.P. No. 34724 of 2000
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=–=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
J U D G M E N T
23rd September, 2008.