1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO.6639/2007 Shankar Nivrutti Salunkhe. ..Petitioner. -VERSUS- The Union of India and others. ..Respondents ......... Mr.Vishwanath S. Talkute, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.V.R.Mishra and Mr.D.A.Dubey, Advocates for the Respondents/Union of India. .......... CORAM : J.N.PATEL & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ DATED : 04th MAY, 2009. P.C. : 1 Heard. 2 The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of discharge dated 12th May, 1987 from the service on the ground of reduction in medical category. Since then the Petitioner has been making various representations to the authorities but he did not prefer any statutory appeal. However, on 30.03.2007, the Petitioner sent a legal notice through his Advocate and in response to that notice, the Authority by it’s letter dated 20.04.2007 informed the grounds of his discharge that (a) the Petitioner’s disability is not attributable to the military service and (b) the Petitioner does not fulfill the conditions, constitutional in nature and not related to the military service. 3 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner was doing job of of Telephone operating, Radio Line operating and Wireless operating since joining the military service. He had worked at various 2 military stations such as Jabalpur, Chandigarh and Udhampur. However, he developed this deficiency to his left ear while in service at Udhampur. On the point of disability whether it is attributable to the military service or not, he placed reliance on Regulation No.173 of the Pension Regulation, 1961. He has also placed reliance on the decision rendered by this Court in case of Moreshwar Bhalchandra Deshpande Vs. Government of India & Others reported in 2007(2) ALL MR 807. 4 We find that the Petitioner has not produced any document, including the discharge certificate issued to him, to show that his disability is attributable by the military service and therefore, he is not entitled to get the benefits. In so far as interpretation of Regulation No.173 of the Pension Regulation, 1961 is concerned, it applies in the case of a person at the stage of entry in the military service. However, this is not the case of the Petitioner as he had already put in eight years’ service in the military and thereafter, he suffered the disability of deafness for which he was treated and therefore, this cannot be attributed to the military service. The facts of Moreshwar Deshpande’s case (supra), hence, are not applicable to the case of the Petitioner. 5 Hence, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J) (J.N.PATEL, J) kps