IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16946 of 2008 Date of Decision: May 19, 2009 Milkha Singh Chahil .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS The Union of India & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. N.R. Dahiya, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Geeta Singhwal, Central Government Standing Counsel, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) Lt. Col. Milkha Singh Chahil (Retd.) has approached this Court in its civil writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Order dated 23.4.2008 (Annexure P-2) and Order dated 29.7.2008 (Annexure P-4) whereunder claim of the petitioner for disability pension has been rejected. Perusal of Annexure P-2 indicates that the payment of disability pension is not permissible as the petitioner had proceeded on premature CWP No.16946 of 2008 [2] retirement at his own request and therefore, is not eligible for an award of disability pension on account of any disability. Under Annexure P-4, in response to the legal notice, while taking the same stand, viz. the petitioner had taken premature retirement, case of the petitioner was not processed for award of disability pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Army (Artillery Corps) on 12.5.1974. The petitioner sustained fracture of Shaft Humorous (Right) in December 1980 while in active army service. The injury was attributed to military service. The disability was assessed at 20% by the Medical authorities and the medical category of the petitioner was down graded to A2 (P). The medical category of the petitioner was further down graded to P2(P) due to essential hypertension in 1996 while in service. The disability was assessed at 30% as aggravated by service. Both the disabilities were assessed as attributed to and aggravated by military service. So far as the case of the respondents is concerned, on the first count i.e. fracture, attribution to military service has been disputed. Under the circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed the claim for disability assessed at 30% on account of essential CWP No.16946 of 2008 [3] hypertension. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment dated 5.5.2004 rendered by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in ‘Mahavir Singh Narwal vs. Union of India & Another’ reported as 2005(1) All India Service Law Journal 133, while dealing with Civil Writ Petition No.2967 of 1989. Union of India challenged the said judgment in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by filing SLP No.24171 of 2004. The appeal was dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondents has not disputed that the petitioner has a disability of 30% attributable to military service. The only ground pressed is that the petitioner sought premature retirement and therefore, was discharged at his own request and therefore is not entitled to the award of disability pension. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to distinguish the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the law laid down in Mahavir Singh Narwal’s case (supra), this petition is allowed. Annexure P-2 and P-4 are quashed. The petitioner retired w.e.f. 11.8.2002. He however made claim for disability pension only on 20.2.2008 as is evident from Para 1 of Annexure P-2. In view of the delay, the arrears of disability pension would be confined to 38 months CWP No.16946 of 2008 [4] preceding the date of filing of the writ petition i.e. 18.9.2008. (AJAI LAMBA) May 19, 2009 JUDGE avin