CWP No. 7112 of 2004 : 1 : In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 16.09.2009 No.4475503 Ex.Rect. Narinder Singh .. Petitioner Versus Union of India and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Bhim Sen Sehgal and Mr.Rajesh Sehgal, Advocates,for the petitioner. Mr.SK Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army after having been found medically fit, on 27.02.1997. He suffered from the disease “Bronchial Asthama” during the training and admitted to Military Hospital on 4.8.1997. He was brought before the Medical Board and was invalided out on its recommendation on 17.02.1998 due to disease aforesaid. The claim of the petitioner for pension was rejected vide letter dated 26.8.1999. The appeal filed by the petitioner also stands rejected on 18.6.2001. The petitioner served a legal notice on the respondents claiming pension. The petitioner has not been granted the disability element or service element by the respondents. It is under these circumstances that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. It is agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by a CWP No. 7112 of 2004 : 2 : judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Maj. Harbans Singh (Retd.) Vs. Union of India and others, 2002 (1) RSJ, 111, wherein the following observations/directions have been made:- “Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed in part, the impugned order is set aside and directions are given to the respondents to release the benefit of disability pension to the petitioner by taking his disability as 40% and this benefit shall be granted for 38 months prior to the date of the filing of this writ petition within three months from the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum. However, the petitioner shall appear before the Re-survey Medical Board as and when called upon by the respondents. There shall be no order as to costs.” The aforesaid observations are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The petitioner shall be entitled to the same relief. Petition stands allowed. 16.09.2009 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE