IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4632 of 2008 Date of Decision: April 15, 2009 Jarnail Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS The Union of India & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - None for the petitioner. Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Central Government Standing Counsel, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This civil writ petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing Order dated 1.12.2006 (Annexure P-3) whereby the claim of the petitioner for disability pension has been rejected. The petition further prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to sanction disability pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.3.2004 i.e. the date of retirement. Perusal of Order, Annexure P-3, shows that the petitioner was enrolled in the Army on 25.5.1988. While in service, the petitioner was CWP No.4632 of 2008 [2] placed in Low Medical Category A3 (T-24) for 6/12 years for disability “Plantar Fasciitis (LT)” w.e.f. 23.7.2001 and subsequently, placed in Medical Category A3 (Permanent) w.e.f. 10.7.2002. The petitioner was placed in Low Medical Category A3 (T-24) w.e.f. 7.7.2003 for another disability “Varicose Veins both lower limb (OPTD)”. The petitioner applied for premature retirement vide application dated 25.8.2003 after rendering 15 years and 3 months of service. In view of the application and recommendations of the Unit Petition Committee, Army Air Defence Records, vide letter dated 30.9.2003, the petitioner was struck off strength from Army w.e.f. 1.3.2004. Para 4 of Annexure P-3 makes it evident that both the disabilities aggravated by military service and percentage of disability was 20% for life. The claim of the petitioner for disability pension has been denied only on the ground that petitioner, on his own sought pre-mature retirement. It is the stand of respondents that in case a person seeks pre-mature retirement or discharge on compassionate grounds, he cannot be allowed disability pension. On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the matter is covered by judgment dated 18.2.2009 rendered by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.19417 of 2007 titled ‘Ex. Naik Parmod Kumar vs. Union of India & Others’ wherein reliance has CWP No.4632 of 2008 [3] been placed on Division Bench judgment of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.10174 of 2006 decided on 1.4.2008 (Naik Amrik Singh vs. Union of India & Others). The disability on account of service having been admitted, the ground taken for denying the claim of the petitioner is clearly arbitrary. Since the matter is covered by the judgment dated 18.2.2009 rendered in Ex. Naik Parmod Kumar’s case (supra), this petition is allowed. The petitioner is entitled to the disability pension. The arrears be released to the petitioner within four months of receipt of certified copy of this order. (AJAI LAMBA) April 15, 2009 JUDGE avin