IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 30.06.2009 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU Writ Petition No.18749 of 1999 R.Gunasekaran ..Petitioner -vs- 1. The Officer in Charge Bureau of Naviks, Cheetah Camp, Mankhurd, Mumbai. 2. Director General Coast Guard, Coast Guard Head Quarters, National Stadium Complex, New Delhi. 3. Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Senabhavan, New Delhi. ..Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent relating to his proceedings BN/00585 dt. 20.4.99 and quash the same and direct the respondents to grant the petitioner service pension as per the rules from the date of his medical invalidation. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Vijay Shankar For Respondents : Mr.R.Praiyakumar, ACGSC O R D E R The petitioner was enrolled as coast guard on 26.6.1985. While he was in service, he fell ill on 11.2.1986 and he was admitted to the hospital. On medical examination, it was found out by the Medical Board that he was medically unfit for service with a disability of 100% and the said disability was due to stress and strain attributed to the service. Accordingly, the Board recommended that the petitioner be medically invalidated from service. Based on the said recommendation, he was invalidated and released from service with effect from 12.6.1986. Subsequently, he approached the first respondent to grant him pension. But, by the impugned proceedings https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dated 20.4.1999, the first respondent has declined. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition. 2.It is contended by the petitioner that under Rule 38 of the Pension Rules applicable to Central Civil Services, the petitioner is entitled for invalid pension. 3.The contention of the respondents is that the petitioner is not entitled for pension, since as per the pension rules, the minimum period of service required is five years. In paragraph 6 of the counter, it is stated that as per the existing provisions, the pay and allowance, leave perks and other admissible benefits of all coast guard personnel are governed by Central Civil Service Rules and accordingly, his case was dealt with under the said provisions. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner is not entitled for pension because he did not have the required minimum service of five years. 4.I have considered the rival submissions. In this case, the petitioner does not claim pension on the ground that he had put in minimum required number of years of service. He claims only invalid pension. There is no controversy that the pension rules applicable to Central Civil Service is applicable to coast guard personnel also. Rule 38 of the said Rules is as follows:- 38. Invalid pension (1) Invalid pension may be granted if a Government servant retires from the service on account of any bodily or mental infirmity which permanently incapacitates him for the service. (2) A Government servant applying for an invalid pension shall submit a medical certificate of incapacity from the following medical authority, namely:- (a) a Medical Board in the case of a Gazetted Government servant and of a non Gazetted Government servant whose pay, as defined in Rule 9(21) of the Fundamental Rules, exceeds Two thousand and two hundred rupees per mensem; (b) Civil Surgeon or a District Medical Officer or Medical Officer of equivalent status in other cases. (3) The form of the Medical Certificate to be granted by the Medical Authority specified in sub-rule (2) shall be as in Form 23. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (4) Where the Medical Authority referred to in sub-rule (2) has declared a Government servant fit for further service of less laborious character than that which he had been doing, he should, provided he is willing to be so employed, be employed on lower post and if there be no means of employing him even on a lower post, he may be admitted to invalid pension." 5.In the case on hand, admittedly, as stated in paragraph 3 of the counter, the Medical Board constituted by the first respondent found the petitioner medically unfit for service and the disability of 100% was due to stress and strain attributed to the service. The petitioner was invalidated and relieved from service only on the recommendation of the Medical Board. When that is the case, there can be no doubt that the petitioner is entitled for invalid pension as provided under Rule 38. Rule 49 specifies the amount of pension. Rule 49 (1) and (2) read as follows:- "49. Amount of Pension (1) In the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules before completing qualifying service of ten years, the amount of service gratuity shall be calculated at the rate of half month's emoluments for every completed six monthly period of qualifying service. (2)(a) In the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules after completing qualifying service of not less than thirty-three years, the amount of pension shall be calculated at fifty per cent of average emoluments, subject to a maximum of four thousand and five hundred rupees for mensum.; (b) In the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules before completing qualifying service of thirty-three years, but after completing qualifying service of ten years, the amount of pension shall be proportionate to the amount of pension admissible under Clause (a) and in no case the amount of pension shall be less than Rupees three hundred and seventy-five per mensum; (c) notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (a) and Clause (b), the amount of invalid pension shall not be less than the amount of family pension admissible under sub-rule (2) of Rule 54. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6.Applying the said rules, if the case of the petitioner is examined, certainly he is entitled for pension to be calculated as per Rule 49. In view of the same, I have no hesitation to hold that the impugned order of the first respondent is unsustainable and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 7.In the result, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the first respondent is directed to grant and pay the invalid pension as provided under Rules 38 and 49 of the Pension Rules. The first respondent is directed to issue consequential orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar sra To 1. The Officer in Charge Bureau of Naviks, Cheetah Camp, Mankhurd, Mumbai. 2. The Director General Coast Guard, Coast Guard Head Quarters, National Stadium Complex, New Delhi. 3. The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Senabhavan, New Delhi. + 1 c.c. to Mr. M. Veluswami, Advocate. S.R.No.27480. + 1 c.c. to M/s. R. Priyakumar, Advocate. S.R.No.27549. W.P.No.18749 of 1999 MSM (CO) GSK 09.07.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/