LPA No. 760 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 760 of 2010 Date of Decision 16.07.2010 Union of India and others -----Appellants Versus Ex. Nb. Subedar Hawa Singh ---Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Ms. Geeta Singhal, Sr. Panel Central Govt. Counsel for the appellants. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. Kumar, J. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 14.09.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.P. No. 7723 of 2009 and the petitioner-respondent has been given the relief of disability pension and the order dated 15.01.2009 (Annexure P10) and 7.02.2004 (Annexure P1) rejecting the aforesaid claim have been quashed. The basic reason for adopting the aforesaid approach by the learned Single Judge is that petitioner- respondent was discharged by the army authority on 30.06.2003 as a Low Medical Category case with 30% disability. However, his claim was rejected on the ground that his disability neither attributable to nor it was aggravated by the same. The learned Single Judge placing reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Surjit Singh v. The Secretary to the Government of India 1999 (4) RSJ LPA No. 760 of 2010 -2- 385 has held that once it is admitted that at the time of recruitment, the petitioner-respondent was found medically fit then it has to be assumed that the petitioner-respondent developed the problem during the military service which carries great stress and strains. The learned Single Judge also found that the Medical Board has not expressed any opinion that such a disease could not be detected at the time of entry of the petitioner- respondent in service. In that regard, the learned Single Judge has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment rendered in the case of A.J.S. Chaudhary v. Union of India and others, 1999 (1) RSJ 778. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants, we are of the considered view that the petitioner-respondent is suffering from 30% disability and there is no Medical Board expressing the opinion that disability was not attributable or aggravated by military service. Therefore, we find that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge do not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the appeal on merit, we do not wish to pass any order seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (A.N. JINDAL) JUDGE July 16, 2010 Atul