IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2009 / 28TH SRAVANA 1931 RP.No. 847 of 2003(I) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.14366/1999 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. S.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, EX.SIGNALMAN (35855-TS.23207) VYOMA SADANAM, PALAPPALLY VILA, KAROOR, POTHENCODE P.O., TRIVANDRUM, KERALA (DIED) 2. LEELAKUMARY AMMA, VYOMA SADANAM, PALAPPALLY VILA, KAROOR, POTHENCODE, ANDOORKONAM VILLAGE. 3. VYOMAKESH KURUP, S/O. LEELAKUMARY AMMA, DO. 4. VASUNDARA DEVI, S/O.LEELAKUMARY AMMA, DO. BY ADV. SRI.G.SASIDHARAN CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. DEFENCFE PENSION DISBURSING OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SENIOR RECORD OFFICER, OIC RECORDS, SIGNAL ABHILEKH KARYALAYA, SIGNAL RECORDS, POST BAG NO.5, JABALPUR (MP) 3. CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (P), ALLAHABAD. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI. R1 TO R4 BY MR.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL BY ADV. MR.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, SCGSC MR.A.JAYASANKAR, ADDL.CGSC THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------------------------- R.P.No.847/03 in O.P. NO.14366 1999 ---------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2009 O R D E R The Original Petition was disposed of by judgment dated 14.10.2003. The petitioner contends that his entitlement for disability pension for the period from 1953 to 1971 has not been decided in the judgment and therefore review of the judgment is sought. 2. True, the petitioner has not been paid disability pension for the aforesaid period. Going by the rules as applicable to the petitioner, the disability should be minimum of 20%, to enable a person to claim disability pension. Nothing has been placed on record to show that during the period in question the disability suffered by the petitioner was 20% or more, in which event only the petitioner could have claimed disability pension. 3. Petitioner contends that for the period subsequent to 1971, on assessment of his disability it was found to be more than 20% and that disability pension was granted for the subsequent period. It may be so, but during the period in question also R.P.No.847/03 :2 : assessment of disability was made and it was found that the disability was less than 20%. In such circumstances, this court could not have overruled the assessment made by the experts of the Medical Board and concluded that the disability of the petitioner was more than 20%. 4. On the materials produced I am satisfied that the petitioner has not made out a case for review. Review Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/