JUDGMENT 1. This intra-Court appeal has been filed by the writ: petitioner of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3476/07 against the order dated 19.3.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge. 2. The short facts of the case are that the appellant was granted disability pension from 27.11.1987 to 27.9.1990. With a view to see whether it should continue from 28.9.1990 onwards, a Resurvey was done by Medical Board on 18.11.2003 and accordingly disability pension was directed to be restored to appellant from 19.11.2003. However, pension for intervening period from 28.9.1990 to 18.11.2003 was denied by the respondent to the appellant for want of his not appearing before Resurvey Medical Board in time. Dissatisfied with the denial order, the appellant-petitioner preferred writ petition out of which this appeal arises. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been preferred. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that having rightly restored the disability pension to the appellant on 19.11.2003 by the Resurvey Medical Board, it erred in denying the same for the intervening period only on the ground that the petitioner-appellant did not appear before the Resurvey Medical Board. He contended that since the disability pension was restored on 19.11.2003 to appellant and the disability also continued till that day, it had to be held rather presumed that the disability continued to remain as it is even during the intervening period i.e. from 28.9.1990 to 18.11.2003, and on this count only, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 5. In reply, the only contention of the Counsel for the respondent-Union of India was that since appellant-petitioner failed to appear before the Resurvey Medical Board and hence, his case for grant of disability pension was closed on the expiry of period mentioned in the pension order and hence there is no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge. 6. There is no dispute on the fact that disability pension was restored to the appellant on 19.11.2003. So far as percentage of disability is concerned, it was not reduced at the time of Resurvey Medical Board held on 18.11.2003. 6. There is no dispute on the fact that disability pension was restored to the appellant on 19.11.2003. So far as percentage of disability is concerned, it was not reduced at the time of Resurvey Medical Board held on 18.11.2003. On the other hand, the disability of the appellant remained at 40% for the initial period from 27.11.1987 to 27.9.1990 and then increased to 60% at the time of Resurvey Medical Board held on 18.11.2003. Thus it could not be said that there was any reduction in the disability during the intervening period. 7. In our opinion, the main purpose of Resurvey by the Medical Board was to determine whether the disability continues with the appellant, and if yes, then to what extent in terms of percentage? When it was not in dispute that by the recommendations of the Resurvey Medical Board held on 18.11.2003, the percentage of disability was increased, we cannot accept the contention of the respondent that since the appellant did not appear before the Resurvey Medical Board earlier in point of time and hence was not entitled to claim any benefit of such disability. 8. We, accordingly, hold that appellant was eligible for disability pension during intervening period. Indeed, in our view, even the grant of disability pension for the intervening period was subject to ensuring compliance of the note contained in Annx. 4, which reads as under: "Note: To enable this office to notify awards for the period from 28.9.1990 to 18.11.1990. Please obtain and furnish the delay explanation of the petitioner and give your specific comments thereon duly supported with non-employment certificate and non-conviction certificate from the authorities concerned." 9. Mere perusal of this note would go to show that to award disability pension for the period from 28.9.1990 to 18.11.2003, the only requirement to be complied with by the appellant was to (i) furnish explanation for delay, (ii) non-employment and (iii) non-conviction certificate. Counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that the appellant was and is always ready to full-fill these requirements as demanded by Annex. 4. 10. Counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that the appellant was and is always ready to full-fill these requirements as demanded by Annex. 4. 10. In the light of foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal in part and while setting aside of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 19.3.2008, allow the writ petition in part and, accordingly, direct that the appellant-petitioner would furnish his explanation for the delay together with non-employment and non-conviction certificate to the respondents within three months as per note appended to restoration order dated 19.11.2003 quoted above. 11. Needless to say, the respondents will then sympathetically consider the case of the appellant and pass appropriate orders.Appeal allowed in part. *******