1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5740/2007 Ex.CPL D.P.Singh v. Union of India & Ors. Date of Order :: 22 nd July, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. S.K.Nanda, for the petitioner. Mr. M.S.Godara, for the respondents. .... On being suffered with Pulmonary Tuberculosis (Lungs) the petitioner was medically boarded out from the Indian Air Force on 2.2.1983 as per the provisions of Rule 15(c) of the Air Force Rules, 1969. By Pension Payment Order No.AF/D/8342/84 100% disability element of pension for life was given to the petitioner and on recommendation of a resurvey medical board the same disability element was awarded to him from 2.12.1985 to 3.4.1998. The resurvey medical board, that examined the petitioner on 7.3.1998, assessed his disability in tune of 30% for next ten years i.e. from, 2.4.1998 to 2.4.2008, however the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) (hereinafter referred to as “the PCDA”) accepted disability of the petitioner only upto 11- 14%, thus, denied for disability element with pension. An appeal preferred against the decision of the PCDA 2 also stood rejected as informed vide communication dated 23.10.2000. A second appeal made by the petitioner also came to be rejected, hence this petition for writ is preferred seeking direction for the respondents to treat disability element of the petitioner as 30% and to pay disability pension accordingly. As per counsel for the petitioner the PCDA is having no authority to reduce disability, pointed out by a body of experts i.e. the resurvey medical board. Reliance is also placed by counsel for the petitioner upon a judgment of this Court in SBCivil Writ Petition No.3113/96, Bhanwar Lal v. Union of India & Ors., decided on 6.11.1998, holding therein that “....reducing the disability without referred to the Medical Board or without hearing Medical examination of the petitioner therein and without providing any opportunity to explain his case and produce necessary material before the respondent before the decision to reduce the pension arrived at, was violative of the principles of natural justice. .....once re-survey Medical Board had found the disability at particular magnitude and authorities had some dispute, it should refer this case to higher medical board for expert opinion”. Per contra, as per the respondents, the petitioner was brought before the review medical board 3 as per para 10 of the Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter dated 7.2.2001 at Army Hospital (R&R) Delhi Cant and the petitioner was not found suffering from any medical disability, thus, the petition for writ is having no merit. Heard counsel for the parties. The admitted facts of the case are that the disability element was extended to the petitioner for the period commencing from 2.12.1985 to 18.9.1986 on being found 100% disability, from 19.9.1986 to 17.7.1988 on being found 30% disability and a recommendation was made to allow disability pension from 16.7.1988 to 3.4.1998 on being found 30% disability. The recommendation made for the term of 16.7.1988 to 3.4.1998 was interfered by PCDA and the disability of the petitioner was reduced at 11-14% for ten years i.e. upto 3.4.2008. While changing disability of the petitioner in the year 1998 the PCDA did not refer the petitioner for reassessment by medical board and no hearing in this regard was given to the petitioner. The change aforesaid with the disability element, therefore, is certainly bad in light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhanwar Lal (supra). The petitioner was reassessed by medical board on 13.12.2003 and prior to that there was no occasion for the respondents to change the disability element awarded by the resurvey medical 4 board. The petitioner's disability element could have been interfered only after 13.12.2003 and not prior to that. This petition for writ, therefore, deserves acceptance and the same, therefore, is allowed. The petitioner is declared entitled for the disability pension by treating his disability as 30% with 4.4.1998 to 13.12.2003. The respondents shall make the payment of difference of pension accruing in favour of the petitioner on grant of disability element within a period of three months from today. No order to costs. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.