Regular Second Appeal No.1722 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1722 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 12, 2009 Ram Sarup ...........Appellant Versus Secretary to Govt. of India and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Anil Ghangas,Advocate for the Appellant. ** Sabina, J. Plaintiff-Ram Sarup filed a suit for declaration. The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Narnaul dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 26.10.2006. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff preferred an appeal and vide judgment and decree dated 13.8.2008, the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul dismissed the same. Hence, the present appeal. The case of the parties, as noticed by the learned District Judge in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment reads as under:- 2.Briefly stated facts of the present plaintiff's case as alleged are that plaintiff was enrolled in Rajputana Rifles on 6.6.1941 and he was invalidated out of service inconsequence of low medical category on 28.4.1947 and his disability was assessed less than Regular Second Appeal No.1722 of 2009 (O&M) 2 20% by CCDA (P) Allahabad. The plaintiff was enrolled in Army at the age of 22 years and he was fit state of health and at that time, he was not suffering any ailment. He suffered injuries during World war II in 1942. The plaintiff was also granted disability pension from 28.4.1947 to 28.4.1949 but later on his disability pension was stopped as his disability was assessed less than 20%. His appeal against the said order was also rejected. The plaintiff was again enrolled on 25.91951 and was discharged on 30.8.1952 as he was medical unfit on account of said injury. The plaintiff asked the defendants several times for grant of disability pension but they refused . Hence, the present suit was filed. 3.The present suit was contested by defendants on the grounds that plaintiff has no cause of action & locus-standi to file the present; the present suit is time barred; the Civil Court Narnaul has no jurisdiction to decide the present suit. The factum of enrollment of plaintiff in the Army on 6.6.1941 and was discharged from service on 28.4.1947 are not disputed. On 25.5.1943, one 44 gallon petrol drum fell across his right foot accidentally, so he suffered this injury. Plaintiff was given all treatment by the defendants and he was relieved from the services with 20% temporary disability and he was given pension for having disability. But during resurvey medical board held after two years, the plaintiff was having less than 20% disability and i.e. whey he was not entitled to disability pension. The plaintiff got himself enrolled in the Army again concealing the facts and Regular Second Appeal No.1722 of 2009 (O&M) 3 previous service and later on he was invalidated from the said service again. Plaintiff was also put under Resurvey Medical Board in 1974 and his disability was again found to be less than 20% and thus, he was not entitled to disability pension as per rules. Plaintiff has also not completed minimum required service for entitlement of his disability pension and plaintiff was assessed by the competent board regarding percentage of his disability. Thus, plaintiff is not entitled for disability pensionbecause he is having less than 20% disability. Hence, defendants have prayed for dismissal of the present case.” On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the disability pension as alleged OPP 2. Whether the civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the suit?OPD 3. Whether suit of the plaintiff is time barred ?OPD 4. Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal is devoid any merit. Plaintiff was having 20% disability at the time of discharge from service. Later on by Reassessment Medical Board after two years, it was found that the disability of the plaintiff was less than 20% and in pursuance to the said report, pension of the plaintiff was stopped in the year 1949. Both the Courts below have held that the plaintiff has failed to establish that he was having 20% disability or more. The finding of fact Regular Second Appeal No.1722 of 2009 (O&M) 4 arrived by the Courts below calls for no interference by this Court in appeal No substantial question of law arises in this case which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge August 12, 2009 arya Regular Second Appeal No.1722 of 2009 (O&M) 5