IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP. No. 5392 of 2009
Date of Decision: 15.10.2009.
Tarsem Singh --Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others --Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI.
Present:- Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Amarpreet Sandhu, C.G.S.C. for the respondents.
***
PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL)
It is not in dispute that the issue involved in the present writ
petition is squarely covered by a judgement of this Court passed in CWP
No. 19417 of 2007 on 18.2.2009.
In the aforesaid judgement, this Court has placed reliance upon
a Division Bench judgement rendered by the High Court of Delhi in CW
No. 2967 of 1989 decided on 5.5.2005 (Mahavir Singh Narwal V. Union of
India and others). The said judgement was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in SLP (Civil) No. 24171 of 2004. The observations made in
Mahavir Singh Narwal’s case are as under:-
” On careful perusal of the aforesaid rule it is manifestly clear
that invalidated from service is necessary condition for grant of disability
pension. What has to be seen for entitlement for disability pension is
whether an individual at the time of his release was in a low medical
category than than in which he was recruited if it was so then such person
will be treated as invalidated from service. It is the admitted case of the
parties that at the time of recruitment the petitioner did not have any
CWP. No. 5392 of 2009 -2-
disability. It is also admitted case of the parties that the petitioner got
disability on account of stress and strain of military service and his category
was initially lower down temporary to CEE on 21st September, 1978 for a
period of 6 months and after the Release Medical Board examined the
petitioner on 11th April, 1979 it found the disability to be 30% aggravated
by stress of military service and he was down graded to permanent low
medical category. Once the petitioner was in low medical category
according to Rules 1 and 2 of Appendix II of Pension Regulations 173 he
shall be treated as invalidated from service. It seems that on careful
consideration of the Pension Regulations 173, read with Rules 1 and 2 of
Appendix II, the respondents themselves have recommended for grant of
disability pension to the petitioner vide their letters dated 3rd April, 1986
and subsequently on 11th April, 1986 which is as under…..
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
respondents that these letters were not issued by the competent authority is
not of any relevance for grant of disability pension. What is relevant is
whether the mandate of Pension Regulation 173 read with Rules 1 and 2 of
Appendix II has been taken into consideration or not. Merely because a
person has attained discharge on compassionate ground although his
disability has been acquired on account of stress and strain of military
service will not be a ground to reject the claim of disability pension, it has
been invalidated act in terms of Appendix II of Rule 173. We allow the writ
petition and direct the respondent to grant disability pension to the
petitioner on the basis of assessment of 30% disability as opined by the
Release Medical board in the year 1979 upto date. For future disability
CWP. No. 5392 of 2009 -3-
pension the respondent may conduct another medical board to assess the
percentage of disability of the petitioner. Arrears of disability pension be
paid to the petitioner within a period of 8 weeks. If the same are not paid
within 8 weeks the petitioner shall be entitled to the interest at the rate of
9% on the amount of arrears. With these directions the writ petition is
allowed.”
While allowing the petition, following directions have been
given in CWP No. 19417 of 2007:-
” In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The
respondents are directed to grant disability pension to the petitioner on the
basis of assessment of 20% disability for life. The respondents shall pay all
the arrears to the petitioner within 2 months from the date of receipt of a
copy of the judgement, failing which the petitioner would be entitled to
interest at the rate of 9% on the amount of arrears.”
Accordingly, present petition is disposed of in terms of the
aforesaid judgement. Petitioner shall also be entitled to the same relief.
However, the payment of arrears shall be restricted to 3 years preceding the
filing of the writ petition.
(PERMOD KOHLI)
JUDGE
15.10.2009
lucky