CWP No.1763 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 16.09.2009 No.14240227 Ex-Signalman Balwinder Nath ... Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Bhim Sen Sehgal and Mr.Rajesh Sehgal, Advocates,for the petitioner. Mrs.Renu Bala Sharma, Advocate,for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): The petitioner was enrolled in the Army Corps of Signal in the Medical category AYE on 04.11.1980. In the year 1994, the petitioner suffered from the disease of “Mixed Deafness Right Ear”. He was brought before the Invaliding Medical Board. He was invalided out of service in the Medical Category “BEE” with disability of 30 percent. He was granted service pension but his disability element claim was rejected on the ground that the disability is neither attributable to nor aggravated by the military service. The appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed. The petitioner filed CWP No.2992 of 1992 in this Court and the same was allowed on 10.09.2001 wherein the petitioner was held entitled to the disability element of pension from the date of invalidation. The LPA filed against the said judgment has also been dismissed on 19.03.2002. It is alleged the respondents ought to have released the disability element of pension for 50 per cent as per the latest order regarding the rounding off the percentage of disability in accordance with the latest instructions dated CWP No.1763 of 2007 2 31.1.2001 but the respondents have released the disability element only for 30 percent w.e.f. 1.12.1997. On 11.5.2002 the petitioner made representation to the concerned authorities. He also served a legal notice on 25.4.2006 which has been rejected vide order 23.12.2006. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming disability pension. It is agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Paramjit Singh Vs. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and others, (CWP No.67 of 2007) decided on decided on 12.2.2008, which has been further relied in the case of Surjit Chand and Anr. Vs. Union of India and others, (CWP No.12583 of 2009, decided on 19.08.2009, wherein the following directions/observation have been made:- “The respondents have denied the benefit of 50% disability pension and Disability Benefit Cover under the Army Group Insurance Fund to the petitioner only on the ground that he was discharged from service on completion of terms of engagement and was not invalidated out from service. Thus, the only question involved in this petition is - whether the petitioner is entitled to benefits which are admissible to army personnel who are invalidated out of service or not. XXX XXX XXX XXX CWP No.1763 of 2007 3 ………At this stage, reference to Regulation 179 of the Army Pension Regulations, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Pension Regulations') is necessary and the same reads as under:- “179. An individual retired/discharged on completion of tenure or on completion of service limits or on completion of terms of engagement or on attaining the age of 50 years (irrespective of their period of engagement), if found suffering from a disability attributable to or aggravated by military service and recorded by Service Medical Authorities, shall be deemed to have been invalidated out of service and shall be granted disability pension from the date of retirement, if the accepted degree of disability is 20 per cent or more, and service element if the degree of disability is less than 20 per cent. The service pension/service gratuity, if already sanctioned and paid, shall be adjusted against the disability pension/service element, as the case may be. 2. The disability element referred to in clause (1) above shall be assessed on the accepted degree of disablement at the time of retirement/discharge on the basis of the rank held on the date on which the wound/injury was sustained or in the case of disease on the date of CWP No.1763 of 2007 4 first removal from duty on account of that disease. Note: In the case of an individual discharged on fulfilling the terms of his retirement, his unwillingness to continue in service beyond the period of his engagement should not effect his title to the disability element under the provision of the above regulation.” A perusal of the above provisions of Regulation 179 of Pension Regulations leaves no room for doubt that the petitioner was invalidated out of service. The petitioner sustained injury/disability during service, which was attributable to and aggravated by military service and recorded by Service Medical Authorities. The note below Regulation 179 further makes it clear in the case of an individual discharged on fulfilling the terms of his retirement, his unwillingness to continue in service beyond the period of his engagement, as was given by the petitioner in the present case, should not effect his title to the disability element under Regulation 179 of the Pension Regulations. In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner will be deemed to have been invalidated out of CWP No.1763 of 2007 5 service and is entitled to disability pension as is admissible to defence personnel who are invalidated out of service. xx xx xx xx xx xx xx For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is held entitled to 50% disability pension and to Disability Benefit Cover under the Army Group Insurance Fund for his disability. The disability pension at the rate of 50% with all consequential benefits will be paid to him from the date of his retirement. The respondents shall pay all the arrears to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the petitioner will be entitled to interest at the rate of nine per cent annum.” The petitioner is also entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforesaid writ petition. However, the arrears are restricted to three years preceding the filing of the writ petition. Such arrears be released within a period of four months from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the competent authority, failing which the petitioners shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Petition disposed of. 16.09.2009 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE