Jarnail Singh Randhawa v. Union of India and Others

rejection of the claim of the petitioner as well as first and second appeal, the petitioner did not challenge those decisions. It is submitted that he became wiser when he suffered heart attack and had to spend money on his treatment. It is also stated that the claim of the petitioner that as per the Medical Board the disease was attributable to or aggravated by the service, namely, due to stress and strain of service is not correct. The medical documents in respect of officers retiring from service on superannuation are preserved for 15 years as per AFO 52/98 and the medical documents in respect of the petitioner, who retired WP(C) No.265.04 from service with effect from 31.3.1978, were weeded out. It is also mentioned that the petitioner was not prematurely retired from service but was allowed to complete his tenure and was retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.3.1978. It is further stated that because of non-availability of the medical record the respondents are not in a position to ascertain the veracity of the submission made by the petitioner that the disease was attributable to or aggravated by the Air Force Service and that the percentage of disability was prescribed at 40%.

5. In the present case one has to bear in mind that even though the petitioner was put in lower medical category due to IHD suffered by him, as mentioned above, he was continued to be retained in service till his normal age of superannuation and was not prematurely retired from service. It was because of the reason that as per the Medical Board, he was found to be fit for duties not involving sustained severe physical exertions, though categorized as A4G3 (Permanent). However, though the petitioner has contended that when he was brought before the Medical Board at the time of his discharge, the Medical Board opined that it was attributable/aggravated by service and was assessed at 40%, there is no record to substantiate this claim. On the contrary, as per the WP(C) No.265.04 documents produced by the petitioner, his claim for disability pension was rejected on the specific ground that the disability, namely, IHD from which the petitioner was found to be suffering at the time of release from service “should be regarded as neither attributable to nor aggravated by his Air Force service.” His first appeal as well as the second appeal were also rejected on the same ground. In the absence of record on the basis of which the petitioner could substantiate his claim, and having regard to the aforesaid legal position, we are of the opinion that the doctrine of delay and laches would be attracted in the present case. No reason at all his given by the petitioner as to why he kept quiet for all these years and did not approach the Court earlier. Had he approached even within 15 years, we could have entertained the claim of the petitioner on merit with reference to the medical record and the deprivation could have been of the past arrears. Since present state of affairs is the creation of the petitioner due to his laxity, it is the petitioner who has to suffer because of the same.

6. In so far as the medical expense is concerned, in the counter affidavit it is stated that the amount is reimbursed as per the rules. We may note that at the time of arguments this relief was not even pressed and no arguments were advanced on this aspect. We, therefore, dismiss this WP(C) No.265.04 petition on the aforesaid ground leaving the parties to bear their own costs. May 02, 2008 HP. (A.K. SIKRI) JUDGE (J.M. MALIK ) JUDGE WP(C) No.265.04