Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1658 (PNJ)

Ex. Subedar Jasmail Singh v. Union Of India

2006-04-25

M.M.KUMAR, M.M.S.BEDI

body2006
Judgment M. M. KUMAR, J. 1. The short issue raised in the instant petition is whether the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) (for brevity, the ccda) could sit in judgment over the opinion of the experts in medical line. The petitioner was boarded out from the army service on 31.7.1996. The Medical Board held on 27.12.1995 at Military hospital, Ambala Cantt. found the petitioner suffering from primary hypertension. His medical disability was certified to be 20%. Accordingly, the service element of the pension of the petitioner was released to him but the element of pension claim was rejected on 7.2.1997 on the basis of letter of the CCDA, dated 13.1.1997. He filed C. W. P. No.14044 of 1998, which was decided on 5.12.2000. 2. According to the opinion expressed by this Court the disability suffered by the petitioner is 20% which is attributable to the army service. The petitioner was held entitled to the benefit of disability pension w. e. f.1.8.1996. This Court has issued direction to the respondents to release the benefit of disability pension to the petitioner by fixing the period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of that order failing which the petitioner was also held entitled to interest @ 12% p. a. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Resurvey Medical Board as and when called upon by the respondent authorities. On 26.7.2001, the petitioner was called upon to appear before the Resurvey Medical Board, which was to be held at Military Hospital, Amritsar, to assess his disability. The Resurvey medical Board assessed the combined disability of 50% (10% disability due to natural progress and 40% referable to service ). The medical report has been attached by the respondents as Annexure R-1. 3. Therefore, it has been categorically established that the petitioner has been certified by the Resurvey Medical Board to be suffering from 40% disability for life. However, the CCDA without accepting the medical report of Resurvey Medical Board (R-1) has continued to assess the petitioner for 20% disability as is evident from the order dated 20.10.2001 (P-5 ). The aforementioned order is subject matter of challenge in the instant petition and further directions have been sought by the petitioner to grant him disability pension by assessing disability to the extent of 50% for life. 4. The aforementioned order is subject matter of challenge in the instant petition and further directions have been sought by the petitioner to grant him disability pension by assessing disability to the extent of 50% for life. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the dispute raised in the instant petition is squarely covered by the judgment of HON BLE the Supreme Court in the case of Ex. Sapper Mohinder Singh V/s. Union of India (Civil Appeal No.164 of 1993, decided on 14.1.1993), wherein it has been held as under:- "from the above narrated facts and the stand taken by the parties before us, the controversy that falls for determination by us is in a very narrow compass viz. whether the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) has any jurisdiction to sit over the opinion of the experts (Medical Board) while dealing with the case of grant of disability pension, in regard to the percentage of the disability pension, or not. In the present case, it is nowhere stated that the petitioner was subjected to any higher Medical Board before the Chief Controller of defence Accounts (Pension) decided to decline the disability pension to the petitioner. We are unable to see as to how the accounts branch dealing with the pension can sit over the judgment of the experts in the medical line without making any reference to a detailed or higher medical Board which can be constituted under the relevant instructions and rules by the Director General of army Medical Core. " 5. The aforementioned view has been followed by a division Bench of this Court in the case of Satpal Singh V/s. Union of india and others (C. W. P. No.15445 of 2003, decided on 26.9.2005 ). 6. We respectfully follow the view taken by HON BLE the supreme Court as well as this Court and hold that CCDA cannot sit in judgment over the opinion expressed by Resurvey Medical Board vide Annexure R-1. Accordingly, applying the principle laid down by the aforementioned judgments, we accept the report of the resurvey Medical Board holding that the petitioner is suffering from 40% disability for life. 7. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. Accordingly, applying the principle laid down by the aforementioned judgments, we accept the report of the resurvey Medical Board holding that the petitioner is suffering from 40% disability for life. 7. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. A direction is issued to the respondents to assess the disability pension of the petitioner by keeping in mind that he suffered from 40% disability for life, which is referable to service, with effect from 26.7.2001. Let the disability pension on the aforementioned basis be now calculated and the arrears be paid within a period of two months from today after adjusting the pension already paid. The petitioner shall continue to get disability pension on the basis of 40% disability for life referable to military service. The petition disposed of in the above terms.