IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 5 of 2006 Union of India. ……... Appellant Versus Prem Singh. ……… Respondent Mr. Pradeep Joshi, Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Raman Kumar Shah, Advocate for the respondent. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. V.K. GUPTA, C. J. (Oral) This Special Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23rd June, 2005 passed in Writ Petition ON. 191 of 2004 (S/S) by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby a directing was issued upon the appellant to consider, decide and grant disability pension to the respondent as is admissible to him in accordance with law. The operative part of the impugned judgment reads thus: “In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for disability pension by the competent authority as well as dismissing the appeal of the petitioner is hereby quashed and a writ of mandamus is issued by commanding respondents to consider, decide and grant disability pension to the petitioner as is admissible to him in accordance with the law within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the concerned authority.” The respondent was enrolled in the Army in the year 1975. He joined Mahar Regiment on 24th July, 1975 and served in that Regiment till 26th August, 1981. He was, however, discharged on the ground of low medical category. He demanded disability pension because, according to him, his low medical category leading to his discharge was consequent upon the disease, which was attributable to and aggravated by military service. His request for the grant of disability pension, however, was rejected. The appeal filed by him was also rejected by the Central Government vide Communication No. 7(1013)92/D (Pen-A&AC) dated 19th December, 1996 sent to him by the Ministry of Defence. It is in para 3 of this Communication that the Government of India spelt out the reasons as to why the respondent was not entitled to receive disability pension. The text of this Communication reads thus: “1. I am directed to refer to your appeal dated 22.09.90 on the above subject and to inform you that the same has been carefully considered by the first Appeal Committee. 2. You were invalided out of from service on account of Invaliding disease CNS Investigation (Fits). 3. The disability on account of which you were invalided out of service is a constitutional disorder. On perusal of your service/medical documents, the Appellate Medical Authority has found that the on set of Invaliding disease was in June, 78 in peace area. There is no field service in close time relationship to onset of ID. There is no delay in diagnosis and treatment. There was no history of head injury or debilitating illness prior to onset of ID. There is no service aggravating factors. In view of the fact that your disability has been regarded by the Medical Authorities as neither attributable to nor aggravated by duties of Military Service, you are not entitled to disability pension under the Rules.” Learned Single Judge did not return any finding in the course of the impugned judgment that the disease suffered by the respondent, which resulted in his being discharged on the ground of low medical category, was attributable to or aggravated by military service. Such a finding was a sine qua non to the Court issuing a mandamus upon the appellant to grant disability pension to the respondent. The learned Single Judge only found that the order rejecting the request of the respondent for grant of disability pension was passed without due and proper application of mind and in passing such order, the appellant had not taken into consideration all the relevant aspects of the case. It is on this ground that the learned Single Judge issued a direction upon the appellant to consider, decide and then grant disability pension as would be admissible under law. The direction is quite innocuous because the learned Single Judge put the ball in the court of the appellant. No specific direction was issued for the grant of the disability pension. The direction only enjoined upon the appellant the duty and obligation to reconsider the matter, to re-decide the same and, if upon such reconsideration and decision afresh the appellant found that the respondent was entitled to the grant of disability pension, the said pension was to be allowed to him as would be admissible under law. The expression “as is admissible under law” meant and related to the extent of the disability pension. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the aforesaid approach of the learned Single Judge and, while dismissing this appeal and reiterating the aforesaid direction of the learned Single Judge, command and direct the appellant to reconsider and decide afresh the case of the respondent with respect to the grant of disability pension by taking into account the history of the case, its record and by applying all relevant aspects. This exercise shall be completed in a period of three months from today. The appellant shall pass a detailed, speaking and reasoned order because we noticed that in para 3 of the Communication dated 19th December, 1996 (supra), which we have extracted above, the reasoning given was cryptic as well as not based upon the record or the particulars of the case. The appellant shall communicate its decision to the respondent within the aforesaid period of three months. It goes without saying that if based upon fresh reconsideration the appellant decides to grant disability pension, the consequences shall follow. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) (V.K. Gupta, C. J.) 24.04.2008 24.04.2008 G