CMNO.8089/2008 & CWP No.4239 of 2003 -1- In the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 30.04.2008. Amar Singh ... Petitioners Versus Union of India and others Respondents. CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICER PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.SK Rattan, Advocate,for the petitioner. Mr.AK Sharma, Addl. C.G.S.C for respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case. The petitioner served the Indian Army. He was member of the 9th Sikh Regiment. He was placed in low medical category CEE and discharged from the army service on 04.08.1979 after completion of 16 years of service. His disability was assessed at 20% by the Medical Board. The disease suffered by the petitioner was “subacute intestinal Obstruction”. According to the petitioner, the disease was attributable and aggravated due CMNO.8089/2008 & CWP No.4239 of 2003 -2- to army service. It has also been brought on record that the petitioner remained admitted in Military Hospital from time to time. The claim of the petitioner for disability pension considered by the CCDA (Pension), Allabahad and disability of the petitioner was reduced from 20% to 19% and his claim for disability pension was rejected. It is against this action of the respondents that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The petitioner was again subjected to the Review Medical Board in the year 1998 and 2002 also. Every time, the Medical Board assessed the disability of the petitioner as 20%, but the CCDA (Pension) reduced the same i.e. less than 20% whereby his claim for disability pension has been rejected. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction for quashing orders passed by CCDA (Pension) reducing disability of the petitioner to less than 20% and has also prayed for grant of disability pension with effect from 17.01.1994, the date from which disability pension was discontinued. It is settled law that not only the pension, even disability pension is a statutory right of the person if his disability is within the prescribed limits. It is not a bounty by the Government or the State. The issue in question involved in the present petition is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court reported as Ex-Capt. Harbhajan Singh Vs. Union of India, 2001 (2) S.C.T., 1123, wherein this Court has made the following observations:- “Several times and repeatedly it has been observed by this Court that any opinion formulated by the CCDA (P) at the back of the petitioner is not CMNO.8089/2008 & CWP No.4239 of 2003 -3- binding upon him because earlier the Medical Board which is constituted by the Government of India has formulated the opinion about the disability of the petitioner. CCDA (P) while sitting on the chair had formulated a unilateral opinion which has no relevance in the eye of law. If any judgment is required to strengthen my opinion, reliance may be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP 4233 of 1992 titled as Mohinder Singh v. UOI decided on 14.1.1993, Ujagar Singh v. UOI & others, 1997 (4) RSJ 587, a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Bhajan Lal v. UOI & others, 1999 (5) SLR 134 and Roshan Lal v. UOI & others, 1998 (3) SCT 546 (P&H): 1999 (5) SLR 42. No law to the contrary has been cited by the learned counsel for the respondents.” In view of the ratio of the aforesaid judgment and other judgments referred therein, I allow this petition and quash letter dated 24.09.1998 (Annexure P-7), letter dated 22.06.2001 (Annexure P-10) and letter dated 12.09.2002 (Annexure P-15) and consequently direct the respondents to release disability pension in favour of the petitioner with effect from 17.01.1994, within a period of six months from today. Since the respondents have illegally with-held the pensionary benefits of the CMNO.8089/2008 & CWP No.4239 of 2003 -4- petitioner, who is an army personnel, he is also held entitled to compensatory interest at the rate of 4% p.a. with effect from the date his pension is due. In the event, disability pension is not released within six months, the petitioner shall be entitled to additional interest of 2% i.e. 6% p.a. from the date of discharge. No costs. 30.04.2008. (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether referred to the Reporter? / NO