CWP No.16400 of 2009 : 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 28.10.2009 Ram Niwas Vs. Union of India and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.RS Panghal,Advocate. Ms.Geeta Singhwal, Advocate. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Ms. Geeta Singhwal, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. A complete set of paper-book has been supplied to him. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard for final disposal. The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on 22.05.1982. He was discharged from the service in Low Medical Category CEE (Permanent) with 40 per cent disablement. The disability suffered by the petitioner was accepted as attributable to and aggravated by military service and his disability was assessed at 20 per cent. In the year 1998 the petitioner was called for Resurvey Medical Board and there was no change in the disability percentage. In the year 2002, the petitioner was again examined by the Medical Board and the disability was assessed at 40 per cent which was later on CWP No.16400 of 2009 : 2 reduced to 20 per cent. From the year 1994 to 2008 the petitioner made various representations to the respondents for receiving less pension. On 12.05.2009 the petitioner represented his case to respondent No.2 which has been rejected vide order dated 26.06.2009 (Annexure P-5). It is under these circumstances that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming disability element of pension at the rate of 40 per cent on the plea that the respondents have no jurisdiction to reduce the same at 20 per cent. Similar issue came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the cases of Ex-Subedar Jasmail Singh Vs. Union of India and others, 2006 (2) Law Herald, 1480 and in CWP No.91 of 2007 (No.13733810-H EX-HAV Hira Singh Vs. Union of India and others , decided on 25.02.2009. It is agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgments wherein the following observations are made:- “Merely saying that the matter had been adjudicated by an authority having competent jurisdiction would not serve the purpose in law. So as to assess that the disease was constitutional (as held by the PCDA (P) and not aggravated by military service (as opined by the Release Medical Board on Physical examination of the petitioner), reasons had to be assigned and that too after examination of CWP No.16400 of 2009 : 3 the petitioner by some higher medical board. The PCDA (P) had no legal authority, in facts or in law, to sit over the judgment of the experts in the medical line, without making any reference to a detailed or higher medical board. In this view of the matter, the case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and as followed by a Division Bench of this Court as noticed above. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. The petitioner would be allowed disability pension at the rate of 20% from the date of his discharge.” The disability of the petitioner has been assessed at forty percent and is stated to be attributable to and aggravated by the army service. The petitioner is, thus, entitled to disability pension with his disability at forty percent. However, the arrears shall be restricted to three years preceding to the filing of the writ petition. With the aforesaid observations, present petition is allowed with no order as to costs. 28.10.2009 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO CWP No.16400 of 2009 : 4