CWP No.12692 of 2004 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 16.09.2009 No.2447442 Ex-Sepoy Balbir Singh ... 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 on 13.11.1962 after having been found medically fit. He was sent for training at Meerut and completed the same successfully. While the petitioner was posted in the Assam Area, he developed disease Hysterical Reaction which could not be cured despite treatment. He was invalided from service on medical ground with 40 percent disability and was placed in the lowest medical category “EEE” permanent. It is alleged that at the time of discharge, the petitioner was assured that he would be granted disability pension consisting both service as well as disability element of pension, however, the same has not been granted. The petitioner made various representations but the claim for disability pension has been rejected by the respondents on 10.11.2003. The petitioner also served a legal notice dated 18.12.2003 which has not been decided till date. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. It is agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties that the CWP No.12692 of 2004 2 controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Bakshish Singh Vs. Union of India and others, (LPA No.174 of 2008) decided on 03.07.2009, wherein the following directions/observation have been made:- “Accordingly, we allow this appeal and direct that pension of the appellant be worked in accordance with law by treating him eligible for disability pension, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Arrears will be admissible for three years prior to filing the writ petition and thereafter.” The aforesaid observations are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The petitioner shall be entitled to the same relief. Petition stands allowed. 16.09.2009 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE