JUDGMENT 1. 1. This special appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 6th of July, 2007 whereby the writ petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to grant disability pension to the petitioner from 22.05.1990 and further to revise the other post retiral benefits. 2. The primary contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant before us is that when the first medical board procedure was continuing, the second medical board examination was sought for by the concerned authority and the second medical board had come to the conclusion that the disability of the petitioner was not attributable to service. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to Annex. R/1 (page 48) to show that the Board had opined that the disability was neither attributable nor aggravated by service. 3. We have carefully considered the material on record and the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 4. The learned Single Judge had held that in the instant case, there was no reason for referring the matter to the second medical board. We had specifically asked the learned counsel for the appellant as to what was the reason/basis for calling examination by, second medical board, but he was unable to answer, even though time was sought to call the original record. Apart from it, as per the case of the appellant, first medical examination of the petitioner was continuing, in such a situation, there was no occasion for the officer concerned to have called for second medical examination by a board, unless the first medical examination procedure had been concluded. Therefore, when there was no basis or just reason for calling the second medical board for examination then opinion given by the first medical board, which reads as follows, was final : "This officer is suffering from bilateral macular dystrophy affecting central ratina as a result of which he is practically blind and totally incapacitated to perform his professional work. Not only that his other day to day routine activities are also adversely affected because of marked restriction of visual fields in both the eyes and he is certainly a liability while driving a mechanical transport or while walking on road side. Not only that his other day to day routine activities are also adversely affected because of marked restriction of visual fields in both the eyes and he is certainly a liability while driving a mechanical transport or while walking on road side. In view of these facts this officer cannot perform his military duties and commitments efficiently and effectively even if he is permitted to do so with maximum employability restrictions and, therefore, he is recommended to be invalidated out of service in cat EEE." 5. It is pertinent to note here that in the opinion of the second board, there is not a word with regard to disagreement with the first medical board. The second opinion is on record at page 48 of the paper book which reads as under : "It is a constriction/disease neither attributable nor aggravated by services..." 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the leaned Single Judge of this Court in arriving at the conclusion and no interference is called for by this court in appellate jurisdiction.Consequently, this appeal is dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******