IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 1680 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: January 20, 2009 Lt. Col. (Retd.) Prem Kumar Kapila .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Union of India and Others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. B.S. Ghuman, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Geeta Singhwal, Central Govt. Standing Counsel, for the respondents. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) This petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for releasing the arrears of disability pension from the year 2000 to 2005, with interest. Facts as they emanate from the record are that the petitioner was enrolled as a Commissioned Officer with respondent no. 2 and joined the Army in the year 1970. The petitioner retired from service on 31.07.2000 in low medical category with recommendation to get 30% disability pension on account of Hypertension which was aggravated by military service. The Release Medical Board held on 13.01.2000 considered 30% disability pension for two years. The initial claim for disability pension recommended by the Release Medical Board was, however, rejected by the adjudicating authority vide order Annexure P-1. C.W.P. No. 1680 of 2008 -2- The petitioner preferred first appeal vide Annexure P-2 which, however, was dismissed vide order Annexure P-3 dated 02.03.2001. The petitioner preferred a second appeal that has been placed on record as Annexure P-4 which was considered and allowed vide order Annexure P-5.. Relevant portion of Annexure P-5, when extracted reads as under:- “I am directed to refer to the second appeal dated 27th July 2005 submitted by Lt. Col. Prem Kumar Kapila (Retd.) (IC- 32031-N) and to convey the sanction of the President that the disability 'Primary Hypertension' be considered as aggravated by military service @ 30% for life w.e.f. 21.11.2005 i.e. the date of Appeal Medical Board.” Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been allowed pension w.e.f. 21.11.2005 for life. The petitioner retired on 31.07.2000. The petitioner in the intervening has not been allowed pension, however, no plausible reason or ground has been given out by the authorities. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to dispute the factual position. Learned counsel has not been able to justify non- payment of disability pension for the period 2000 to 2005. I have considered the issue involved. I find that it is the admitted case of the respondents that the Release Medical Board held on 13.01.2000 had considered the medical condition of the petitioner and as Hypertension (disease) was found to have been aggravated by military service, 30% disability pension was recommended for two years. It was the Medical Board that is the relevant and concerned authority to assess the disability. The same, however, was rejected by the adjudicating authority vide C.W.P. No. 1680 of 2008 -3- Annexure P-1. No reason or the basis for rejection has been given out in Annexure P-1. Likewise the first appeal was dismissed vide order Annexure P-3 without taking into account the facts and circumstances narrated by the petitioner in the appeal. Orders Annexure P-1 & P-3, under the circumstances are rendered illegal. This is particularly so as the order passed on second appeal allows disability pension to the petitioner on account of Hypertension as aggravated by military service, at the rate of 30%, for life. It is not conceivable that the Medical Board in the year 2000 found the petitioner entitled to 30% disability pension for two years on account of disease found aggravated by military service. Again on second appeal the competent authority vide order Annexure P-5 found the petitioner to be entitled to the same benefit w.e.f. 21.11.2005 for life. However, for the intervening period, the benefit has been denied. The action of the respondents in denying the benefit to the petitioner for the intervening period as claimed in the petition, is clearly fanciful, inconsistent, unreasonable, irrational, injudicious and, therefore, arbitrary. In view of the facts and circumstances given out above, the petition is allowed. The arrears of pension would be released in favour of the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order passed today. There would, however, be no order as to costs. 20.01.2009 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE