1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : O R D E R : S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6299/2003 (Nukla Ram Vs. Union of India & Ors.) Date of Order :: 24.07.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr.Pankaj Gupta, for the petitioner. Mr.Ravi Bhansali, for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment rendered by this Court in Pratap Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2005 (8) RDD 3161 (Raj.). Upon perusal of the facts of present case, I am of the opinion that controversy involved in this case is squarely covered with the judgment rendered in Pratap Singh's case, therefore, this case is also required to be dealt with as per adjudication made by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. In para 18 after considering Regulations 173 and 2 173-A it has been held that incumbent who was discharged from service due to disability even if less than 20% is entitled for pensionary benefits in accordance with Regulation 173-A. Para 18 and 19 reads as under:- “18. Keeping this object into consideration, in my opinion, Regulations 173 and 173-A deals in different sphere. Regulation 173 deals with all kinds of disability where individuals are placed in either of the medical category as defined in classification of disease appended to the Entitlement Rules. But Regulation 173-A is only confined to such individual who are placed in low medical category other than “E” (permanently) and discharged form services since no alternative employment in his trade/category is available and in such contingency, after being discharged from army service, some means for livelihood has to be provided to them. In my opinion, petitioner's case for grant of disability pension is covered under Regulation 173-A and not under Regulation 173 as contended by respondents and both the restrictions as referred to in Regulation 173 with regard to disability being (a) attributable to or aggravated in army service, and (b) assessed at 20% or over, cannot be made applicable for grant of disability pension to such individuals, who are covered by Regulation 173-A of Army Pension Regulations. In the absence of which instead of achieving the object of the beneficial provision it will defeat the every purpose for which provision has been inserted by amendment in 1967. 19. So far objection raised with regard to the delay in filing writ petition is concerned, in my opinion, denial of disability pension to petitioner for years was a continuous wrong and such action of respondents was in breach of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is the duty of respondents to have paid disability pension to petitioner when he 3 was discharged from service but he made representations to the authorities, thereafter approached this Court by filing writ petition and in compliance of direction given by this Court in his earlier writ petition, he was communicated with impugned decision dated 10.01.1997 (Annexure-15). This being continuous wrong, in present facts and circumstances, there was no latches on the part of petitioner in approaching this Court and immediately after he was communicated with decision (Annexure-15), he preferred this writ petition. In such fact situation, preliminary objection raised of laches on the part of petitioner in approaching this Court does not have any merit and, therefore, stands over- ruled.” In this view of the matter, respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner in the light of said judgment and also grant pensionary benefits to the petitioner within a period of two months from today. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in terms of above judgment passed in Pratap Singh's case. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS),J. A.K. Chouhan/-s