Anil Dev Singh. ( 1 ) THIS is a Writ Petition whereby the petitionerseeks a direction to the respondents to pay disability pension at the rate of 60% tohim w. e. f. 9/05/1988 for a period of 10 years as assessed by the Re-survey Medicalboard. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition are as under: THE petitioner was enrolled in the Army (EME) on 17/10/1941. He wasdischarged from the Army on completion of his term of engagement on 7/07/1969. At the time of his discharge he was examined by release Medical Board ,which found him to be in a low medical category. His disability was assessed atthe rate of 30% and the same was held to be attributable to army service. Consequently the petitioner was granted disability pension at the rate of 30%besides the usual pension, which was admissible to him. The amount of disabilitypension was varied from time to time by the respondent depending upon theassessment of the disability by release Medical Board . ( 3 ) ON 9/05/1988 a Re-survey Medical Board again examined the petitionerfor re-assessment of his disability. After examining the petitioner the Board cameto the conclusion that the petitioner should be paid disability pension at the rateof 60%. The matter was, however, referred to CCDA (Pensions) Allahabad forapproval of the recommendation of the Board. The CCDA (Pensions) inconsultation with the Medical Advisor attached with it, came to the conclusionthat disability pension should be admissible to the petitioner at the rate of 30%. Inthis regard a communication dated 29/04/1989 was sent to the petitioner. Thepetitioner not being satisfied with the decision of the CCDA preferred an appealto the Government of India, Ministry of Defence. The Government of India byits letter dated 27/07/1992 decided that the disability of the petitioner, whichwas attributable to military services, be deemed to be enhanced as assessed bythe Re-survey Medical Board held on 9/05/1988. Having decided in thismanner, the letter, however, stated that the disability pension rate be treated as30% for a period of 10 years. There appears to be an apparent mistake inmentioning the rate of disability pension in the letter of the Government of India. Having said that the disability pension be deemed to be enhanced as assessed bythe Re-survey Medical Board held on 9/05/1988, the petitioner would have beenentitled to disability pension at the rate of 60% as was recommended by the Resurvey Medical Board. Having said that the disability pension be deemed to be enhanced as assessed bythe Re-survey Medical Board held on 9/05/1988, the petitioner would have beenentitled to disability pension at the rate of 60% as was recommended by the Resurvey Medical Board. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, while emphasisingthis aspect of the matter, also contended that the action of the CCDA in acceptingthe disability of the petitioner as 30% was arbitrary and it could not differ withthe recommendations of the Re-survey Medical Board without having the petitioner examined from a higher medical authority. He supported his contentions bythe decision of the Supreme Court in Ex. Sapper Mohinder Singh v. Union of indiabeing Civil Appeal No. 164/1993 (decided on 14/01/1993 ). In thisconnection, he laid emphasis on following observations of the Supreme Court : "we have examined the relevant materials and we do not feel satisfied withthe plea taken in the counter affidavit. No details of the consultation hasbeen disclosed by the respondent nor it is claimed that the appellant has beenre-examined by any higher medical authority. We are not prepared to act onthe vague allegations in the counter affidavit referred to above. In view of allthe relevant circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that thedisability Pension assessed at the rate of 40% by the Medical Board, whichhad examined the appellant, should be respected until a fresh Medical Boardexamines the appellant again and comes to a different conclusion. Accordingly we direct that for the period 1. 8. 1989 to 31. 1. 1993 the appellant shall bepaid the Disability Pension at the rate of 40% and it will be open to theauthority concerned to have the appellant re-examined by a properly constituted Medical Board for re-assessment of the disability with effect from1. 2. 1993. "i have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the above noted observations of the Supreme Court, I am of theopinion that the petitioner is entitled to disability pension at the rate of 60%. ( 4 ) IT is not disputed that the Re-survey Medical Board assessed the disabilityof the petitioner as 60%. In case the CCDA was not satisfied with therecommendations of the Medical Board, it should have got the petitionerexamined by another Medical Board or higher medical authority. ( 4 ) IT is not disputed that the Re-survey Medical Board assessed the disabilityof the petitioner as 60%. In case the CCDA was not satisfied with therecommendations of the Medical Board, it should have got the petitionerexamined by another Medical Board or higher medical authority. But withouthaving the petitioner examined by a fresh Medical Board or higher medicalauthority, it was not proper to take a contrary view from the one taken by the Resurvey Medical Board. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent, however, contended that the CCDAtook the advise of a Medical Advisor attached with it before deciding the questionof disability pension of the petitioner. It is, however, not disputed by learnedcounsel for the respondent that the petitioner was not examined by the Medicaladvisor before giving his opinion. It is difficult to imagine how the Medicaladvisor could have given an opinion without examining the petitioner. It is alsonot disputed that the Medical Board is constituted of three members and is headedby a Lt. Col. of the Army Medical Corp. Learned Counsel for the respondent hasalso admitted that the Medical Advisor, who was attached with the CCDA at therelevant time was also a Lt. Col. How could he then over-rule the decision of theboard of three members presided over by a Lt. Col. ? The manner in which therecommendations of the Re-survey Medical Board were rejected by the CCDA ishighly unsatisfactory. The Supreme Court in Ex. Sapper Mohinder Singh (supra)took the view that the disability pension assessed by the Medical Board should berespected until a fresh medical board examines the person suffering from thedisability and in whose favour the recommendation is made by the former Board. ( 6 ) HAVING regard to the above discussion, I am of the opinion that thepetitioner is entitled to receive disability pension at the rate of 60% from 9/05/1988 for a period of 10 years as assessed by the Re-survey Medical Board. Itis, however, clarified that in case the respondents are not satisfied with thefinding of the Board they can appoint a fresh Medical Board to examine thepetitioner. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, this Writ Petition succeeds and it is directed that thepetitioner shall be paid disability pension at the rate 60% w. e. f. 9/05/1988 for aperiod of 10 years. The respondent will also pay costs to the petitioner in the sumofrs. 5,000. 00.