Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 191 (PAT)

Mahesh Prasad Mandal v. Union Of India

2000-02-03

R.M.PRASAD

body2000
Judgment R.M.Prasad, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction to provide re-employment and also for grant of disability pension from the date of his discharge, i.e., 28.2.1990 from defence service. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was discharged from Army Service on the ground of disablement due to Low Medical Category, i.e., BEE(P) on 28.2.1990 and thereafter, he applied for grant of disability pension, which has been denied. 3. Under Rule 173 of the Pension Regulation for the Army, 1961, Part-I, disability pension is to be granted to an individual who is invalidated from service on account of a disability-which is either attributable to or aggravated by military service and assessed at 20% or above. 4. It is admitted in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that the disability of the petitioner was assessed at 20% for two years. However, it is stated that in the case of the petitioner his disability was assessed by medical authority and is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service and as such the petitioner is not entitled for disability pension as per rules. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there being no dispute that the petitioner suffered disability while in service, he is entitled for grant of disability pension irrespective of the fact that whether the said disability is directly attributable to or aggravated in course of discharge of duty in service. In support of this, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on various decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Joginder Singh V/s. Union of India reported in 1995 Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases 232, Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Piar Chand V/s. Union of India reported in 1996 Lab IC 445, and the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Baljor Singh V/s. Union of India reported in 1997 Lab IC 1818. 6. In the case before the Supreme Court, the appellant met with an accident while he was on casual leave. The respondent discharged him from service and paid him the pension due to him, but denied disability pension. The apex Court held that the appellant being in the regular Army, there was no reason why he should not be treated as on duty when he was on casual leave. The respondent discharged him from service and paid him the pension due to him, but denied disability pension. The apex Court held that the appellant being in the regular Army, there was no reason why he should not be treated as on duty when he was on casual leave. Accordingly, the apex Court held that there was no justification whatsoever for denying the disability pension to the appellant. 7. Regulation 173 of the said Regulation came up for consideration in the cases before the Himachal Pradesh High Court and Delhi High Court. 8. In the case before the Himachal Pradesh High "Court, the petitioner-Sappy discharged from his service on account of disease of epilepsy suffered by him. Medical evidence showed that the said disease arose during his service and not existed before he joined service. The Division Bench held that disability due to such disease having casual connection with his service condition, the petitioner was entitled to disablement pension. 9. Thus, from the said principle decided, it is evident that the disability pension has to be granted to an individual who is invalidated from service on account of his disability assessed at 20% or above irrespective of the fact that it was either directly attributable to or aggravated in course of discharge of duty in military service. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to issue necessary authorization for payment of disability pension from the date of discharge of the petitioner from service, i.e., 28.2.1990 within two weeks of the receipt/production of a copy of this order.