IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 827 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.9.2009. Union of India and others ......Appellants Vs. Ex.Nk.Parmod Kumar ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: Ms.Geeta Singhwal, Central Government Counsel, for appellants. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition of the respondent and directing grant of disability pension. 2. The respondent was enrolled in the Army as Sepoy on 7.4.1987. While on temporary duty in Delhi on 15.6.2003, he met with an accident. He was discharged from military service after serving more than 15 years, on 31.8.2003. On medical examination, he was found to have Compound Spiral Fracture of Tibia. The said injury was attributable to army service. The claim of the petitioner for disability pension was rejected on the ground that he had been discharged from service at his own request and was not invalidated out. Reliance was placed on earlier DB Judgment of this Court in Nk.Amrik Singh Ex.No.2481131 H v. Union of India and others C.W.P.No. 10174 of 2006, decided on 1.4.2008 and judgment of Delhi High Court in Mahavir Singh Narwal v. Union of India and others CWP No. 2967 of 1989 decided on 5.5.2004. Reliance was also placed on LPA No. 827 of 2009 [2] recommendation of 6th Pay Commission for treating person, who retired voluntarily, eligible for grant of disability pension. 3. The learned Single Judge held that once disability was held to be attributable to army service, mere fact that instead of being invalided out, request for discharge was made, there was no ground to deny disability pension as held in the earlier DB Judgment in Nk.Amrik Singh and judgment of Delhi High Court in Mahavir Singh (supra). 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants is not able to dispute that case of the respondent is covered by earlier DB Judgment of this Court in Naik Amrik Singh (supra). This being the position, no ground is made out for interference with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 6. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) September 11, 2009 JUDGE raghav