L.P.A.No. 1093 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A.No. 1093 of 2010 Date of Decision:- 06.09.2010 Union of India and others Appellants. VERSUS Ex-Major Gurraj Karan Singh Saraon Respondent. CORAM : HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR. HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI. Present: Ms. Sangeeta Dubey, Advocate, Central Government Standing Counsel for the appellants. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? RITU BAHRI,J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 4.9.2009 passed by learned Single Judge. Benefit of disability pension has been allowed to the petitioner. However, payment of arrears has been restricted to three years from the date of filing of the L.P.A.No. 1093 of 2010 2 writ petition. While allowing the writ petition, reliance has been placed on a judgment rendered by the High Court of Delhi in C.W.P. No. 2697 of 1989 decided on 5.5.2005 (Mahavir Singh Narwal Vs. Union of India and others) The question of disability pension was considered in this case. At the time of recruitment, the petitioner in this case did not have any disability. While in service, he was found medically disabled to the extent of 30% by the Medical Board. The Court had examined Pension Regulations 173 read with Rules 1 and 2 of Appendix II of Pension Regulations. Merely because a person was discharged on compassionate ground, although he required disability on account of stress and strain of military service would not constitute a ground to reject the claim of disability pension. On this ground, the benefit has been allowed along with 9% interest. Assailing the judgment of the learned Single Judge, Ms. Sangeeta Dubey, learned Central Government Standing Counsel has placed reliance on Regulation 50. She has tried to make out a case that the petitioner sought voluntary retirement and, therefore, was not entitled to disability pension. We have gone through Regulation 50 and are of L.P.A.No. 1093 of 2010 3 the view that the case of the petitioner is not covered by Regulation 50. The petitioner sought retirement because of stress and strain in performing his duties due to disability, which was allowed and ultimately, he was released on 9.3.1998. A plain reading of Regulation 50 clearly shows that the disability pension is not admissible if an Officer seeks voluntary retirement. In the present case, the petitioner did not seek voluntary retirement. He was discharged on account of being permanently disabled from the Army Medical Board. In view of the above, we find no merit in the Letters Patent Appeal and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR ) (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE JUDGE 06.09.2010 Anoop L.P.A.No. 1093 of 2010 4