CWP No.13712 of 2009 : 1 : In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 03.09.2009 IC-21290 W Colonel Mohan Singh (Retd.) Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Navdeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.SK Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. The petitioner joined the Indian Army on 09.02.1964. His Medical Category at the time of recruitment was AYE (Shape-I). The petitioner developed Ischaemic Heart Disease (IHD) and was accordingly invalidated out on the basis of the opinion of the Medical Board in the year 1994. His disability was assessed at thirty percent and was held to be aggravated by and due to the physical and mental stress and strain of the army service. The claim of the petitioner for disability pension has been rejected by the respondents. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the rejection of the disability pension which came to be rejected vide letter dated 06.05.1996 (Annexure P-2) and letter dated 25.08.1998 (Annexure P- 3). The petitioner applied for reconsideration but without any result. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. Similar issue came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the cases of Ex-Subedar Jasmail Singh Vs. Union of India and others, 2006 (2) Law Herald, 1480 and in CWP No.91 of 2007 CWP No.13712 of 2009 : 2 : (No.13733810-H EX-HAV Hira Singh Vs. Union of India and others , decided on 25.02.2009. It is agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgments wherein the following observations are made:- “Merely saying that the matter had been adjudicated by an authority having competent jurisdiction would not serve the purpose in law. So as to assess that the disease was constitutional (as held by the PCDA (P) and not aggravated by military service (as opined by the Release Medical Board on Physical examination of the petitioner), reasons had to be assigned and that too after examination of the petitioner by some higher medical board. The PCDA (P) had no legal authority, in facts or in law, to sit over the judgment of the experts in the medical line, without making any reference to a detailed or higher medical board. In this view of the matter, the case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and as followed by a Division Bench of this Court as noticed above. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. The petitioner would be allowed disability pension at the rate of 20% from the date of his discharge.” CWP No.13712 of 2009 : 3 : The disability of the petitioner has been assessed at thirty percent and is stated to be attributed and aggravated by the army service. The petitioner is, thus, entitled to disability pension with his disability at thirty percent. However, the arrears shall be restricted to three years preceding to the filing of the writ petition. With the aforesaid observations, present petition is allowed with no order as to costs. 03.09.2009 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO