IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1575 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 21/11/2006 in WP NO : 17372 OF 1995 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Government of India., Ministry of Defence, (pension A) New Delhi 2 Officer in charge, Armoured Corps, Records (post bag 55) Ahmednagar 3 CDA Pension Establishment, Allahabad, (UP) 4 The President Medical Board, Military Hospital Secunderabad ..... APPELLANT(S) AND Talari Ganaiah S/o.T.Moses R/o.Jillella, Gosapadu Mandal Kurnool District Andhra Pradesh .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.B.D.MAHESWARA REDDY The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by an order dated 21-11-2006 passed in W.P.No.17372 of 1995, this appeal has been filed by the employer- Union of India. The question is with regard to the disability of the respondent- employee. It is not in dispute that on 31-7-1992, the concerned employee was examined by the Medical Board and the Medical Board came to the conclusion that his disability was 30%. The said fact was not disputed by the learned Advocate for the appellants and in view of the said fact the employee is entitled to disability pension for a period of five years. According to the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants, the medical test conducted on 31-7-1992 was not warranted. We do not want to go into the maintainability of the said test. But the fact remains that upon examination, the disability of the employee was 30% and in that case he is entitled to disability pension. The learned single Judge has therefore, rightly directed the appellants to pay disability pension for a period of five years from 31-7-1992, the day on which his disability was considered to be 30%. We see no error in the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge. The appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. _________________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ __________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 17th December, 2008. GRR