JUDGMENT 1. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. It is the admitted position of the case that the petitioner was enrolled as a Constable in Rajasthan Arms Constabulary, Bikaner on 13-1-1964. The petitioner in para no. 3 of the writ petition has specifically mentioned that he was posted in IIIrd R. A. C. which was subsequently merged in 12 Bn. B S. F. It was also submitted that during the Indo-Pak war he was deputed on border at B. C. P. Kishanpura. On 26th September, 1965 his company was ordered to move for Akusar on feet. The company Commander directed to carry two grenads by every one and rest of grenads were carried out by the petitioner and constable No. 437 Khangararam. As they had moved about 700 yards there was an explosion of grenads, consequently the petitioner and constable Khanangararam were seriously injured. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India submits that there is no record with them as the R. A. C. merged with B. S. F. on 1-4-1966. 4. It is the admitted position that Ex. I dated 31st October, 1967 was issued by the Commandant of the 12Bn. B. S. F.. Bikaner. In the said order it has been specifically mentioned that the petitioner is not fit for further service and is hereby retired from Government service in on invalid pension with effect from the date of his relieving from the post i. e. 31st October, 1967. Thus, there is a clear order that the petitioner is entitled to get the invalid pension in accordance with the rules. I have perused Ex. 2. and medical report Ex. 3. The medical report (Ex. 3) mentioned that the vision of the eye of the petitioner has reduced. There is a reference in the report that the petitioner has sustained injuries in Sept. 65 of which on examination it was revealed that there is a regular scar present of size 8"x5". Some injuries were also found and there was an X-ray report also. In column 7 it has been mentioned that defective vision is 49% and old injury scar is 30%. 65 of which on examination it was revealed that there is a regular scar present of size 8"x5". Some injuries were also found and there was an X-ray report also. In column 7 it has been mentioned that defective vision is 49% and old injury scar is 30%. In serial No. 10 of the said report it has been mentioned that if required you should consult, nearby hospital At item No. 12 it has been mentioned that you have been hoarded out on medical ground on defective vision and old injury scar. From the Perusal of the Ex.5 it is also clear that the petitioner has sustained disability due to multiple injury. There is a reference also that after considering the case of the petitioner the Unit Medical Officer has, given his opinion that the petitioner's disability was not only on account of defective vision but also because of multiple injuries.The petitioner has moved representation after representation but nothing has happened so far. Vide Ex. 6 the pension case of the petitioner has been closed. Thereafter the petitioner again represented to the authorities and vide Ex- 8 dated 21st October. 1985 the petitioner was intimated that his case would be re-examined on receipt of the reply from the R. A. C. Ex. 9. 10, 11, 12 and 13 are the correspondence which took place between the parties. On behalf of the respondent reply has been filed and it is submitted that the petitioner was not confirmed on the post in the B. S. F. as he has his lien in the R A.C. and as such the Accountant General, Rajasthan has the jurisdiction to decide the pension case of the petitioner. It was also submitted that there was no reference in the lull record about the injuries sustained by the petitioner. It will not be out of place to mention here that as early as in the Near 1965 the Commandant has intimated Gulam Rasul who is a near relative of be petitioner that the petitioner was injured while protecting the Indo-Pak border, and he was admitted in Bikaner hospital and now his condition is good and there is nothing to be worried. This goes to show that the petitioner is the injured person who has sustained injuries in the war. On behalf of the State also reply has been filed. This goes to show that the petitioner is the injured person who has sustained injuries in the war. On behalf of the State also reply has been filed. It was submitted that the pension case of the petitioner was considered and was rejected on the ground that he has not completed 5 years of his service in R. A. C. The condition of 5 years of service does not service at all in the case of a person who has sustained injuries during the Indo-Pak war. A person who is serving the nation at the risk of the life of the nation cannot be deprived of rightful pension on the ground that he has not completed 5 years of service. The order Ex. 1 dated 31st October, 1967 itself is clear that the petitioner has been retired on the ground of becoming invalid and he is entitled to get the invalid pension. Now the question arises who is reponsible for the grant of pension. It is an admitted position that the R. A. C. merged on 1-4-66 in B. S. F. The petitioner was taken in service of the B. S. F. It is immaterial whether he was permanently absorbed or not in the light of order Ex. 1 which was issued by the Commandant of B. S. F. It is not the case of the petitioner that State should give the pension. So it is a case of extraordinary pension on account of being an invalid during Indo-Pak war. It is a matter which finds a humanitarian consideration also. A soldier fights for the nation puts his life at the risk and he does not care for his life and his family. Any argument made against such persons who are risking their life in the case of the pension is a crime against the nation. It is regretable matter in which Union Government and the State Government too both are responsible. The petitioner is it person who has sustained injuries in the war and therefore he has been retired on this ground during the Indo-lak war and as such he has retired on invalid pension. In such circumstances it is for the respondents are also liable (sic) to grant pension. 5. In the result, the writ petition is accepted, the extraordinary pension on account of invalid (sic) can be granted to the petitioner immediately. In such circumstances it is for the respondents are also liable (sic) to grant pension. 5. In the result, the writ petition is accepted, the extraordinary pension on account of invalid (sic) can be granted to the petitioner immediately. This petitioner will he entitled to claim interest at the rate of 12% p. a.Petition Accepted. *******