S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 1811 of 2006 · Rajasthan High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Partly allowed
In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. G.R. Punia, for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Bhansali, for the respondents. BY THE COURT: By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the orders Annx.2 dated 21-1-1991 and Annx.6 dated 02-02-2006 and also seeks a direction to the respondents to pay the disability pension to the petitioner. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on 03-7-1963; however subsequently he was placed in the Low Medical Category “EEE” by the Medical Board and discharged on 04-6-1967 on the medical ground with disability pension for a period of one year. The petitioner was to re-appear for the 2 medical survey in the year 1968, however it appears that the petitioner did not appear for re-survey and in the year 1988, the petitioner made a request to the respondent authorities to hold a re-survey by the Medical Board in order to assess his disability.
In the year 1988, the Medical Board was constituted and the petitioner appeared for re-assessment of disability; however it was found less than 20% (i.e. 11.14%). Again the petitioner was required to appear before the Assessing Authority, more particular before the Medical Board and he appeared on 10-4- 1990 at the Military Hospital, Jodhpur and the Medical Board assessed his disability above 20% for the rest of the life. Despite th fact that the petitioner, on re-survey by the Medical Board, was found having the disability above 20% for the rest of the life, yet the respondent No.3, the Principal Controller of Defence- Accounts (Pension), rejected the claim of the petitioner for disability pension. Hence this writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the material on record, as also the reply filed by the respondents. While replying to the averments made in para No.3 to 8 of the writ petition, the respondents came with the case that on 10-9-1990, the petitioner appeared before the Medical Board held at the Military Hospital, Jodhpur for resurvey and assessment of disability by the Medical Board and after 3 examining the petitioner, the Medical Board opined that the petitioner is having 20% permanent disability and the duration is rest of the life.
Operative part
Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations of Army, 1961 provides that it is otherwise provided, disability pension will be granted to an individual who is invalid from service on account of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by Military service and is assessed at 20 per cent or over. Thus, in view of the provisions of Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations of Army, 1961, the petitioner is entitled for disability pension. In this view of the matter, the writ petition deserves to be allowed partly, to the extent that the petitioner is entitled for disability pension with effect from 10-9-1990 for the rest of his life. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned orders Annx.2 dated 21-01-1991 and Annx.6 dated 02-02-2006 are quashed and the respondents are directed to pay the disability pension to the petitioner with effect from
10.9.1990 as per the assessment of disability, i.e. above 20% for the rest of his life. This exercise be completed by the respondent No.3, the Principal Controller of Defence-Accounts (Pension), within three months from today. The petitioner is also entitled for interest @ 9% per annum on the arrears of pension accrued to him with effect from 10-9-1990 till the date 4 actual payment is made. There shall be no order as to costs. The stay petition also stands disposed of. (H.R. PANWAR), J.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.