IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP 3753 of 2009. Decided on: March 18, 2011. Bhisham Singh …Petitioner. Versus Union of India & Another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the appellant Ms, Ritta Goswami, Advocate. For the respondents Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Asstt. Solicitor General of India. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner, who was employed as constable with Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), sustained an injury in the left eye, in the year 1971, while in service. His Medical Examination was conducted and he was assigned non - combatant duty, after it was noticed that there was partial loss of vision of that eye. In 1983, again medical check up was conducted and it was found that vision had further reduced and the petitioner was placed in category BEE(P), but still he was found fit to continue in service against non- combatant post. Again, in 1996, a medical check up was conducted. Though no further deterioration was noticed, it was sought to discharge the petitioner and release him on Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? - 2 - medical grounds. He was granted service pension, as also extra ordinary disability pension. This was done in May 1997. 2. Petitioner had requested the respondents, his employers, to allow him to continue in service till 3.5.1998, when he was to have completed 28 years of service, because in that situation, on addition of 5 years qualifying service, by virtue of Rule 48-B of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, he was to get full pension, which was permissible on completion of 33 years of service, during those days. His request was turned down. He filed a writ petition in this Court. That writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 28.9.2006 and following directions were issued: “i) The petitioner be treated to have continued in service up to the date when he would have completed 28 years of service, i.e. 3.5.1998, and be paid salary and all other allowances etc. from 16.5.1997 to the said date. ii) On and with effect from the date next following the date on which the petitioner would have completed 28 years of service, i.e. 4.5.1998, he be treated to have voluntarily retired under the relevant provisions of Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972 and given the benefits of Rule 48-B and pension and retiral benefits be paid to him accordingly, from such date. iii) Arrears of salary, in accordance with direction No. 1, and arrears of retiral benefits, in terms of direction No. 2, be paid to the petitioner within three months with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum. - 3 - 3. Appeal was filed against the aforesaid judgment, which came to be dismissed by a Division Bench, vide order dated 9.1.2008. 4. In compliance with the aforesaid order of this Court, petitioner was treated to have continued in service up to 3.5.1998 and was retired with effect from 4.5.1998 and service pension was granted. 5. Now the contention of the petitioner is that he is entitled to invalid pension also, in addition to ordinary pension, granted to him on completion of 28 years. He is being denied this pension on the ground that Order of Discharge, as a consequence of which, the petitioner had earlier been granted disability pension, in addition to his service pension, had been set aside by this Court, vide order dated 28.9.2006. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 7. It is clear from a reading of the judgment, dated 28.6.2006, which is available on record as Annexure P-1, that this Court had, though set aside the order of discharge, but it was in the context that the petitioner was to be treated to have continued in service up to 3.5.1998, when he would have completed 28 years of service and by addition of 5 years qualifying service, by virtue of Rule 48-B, he would have been entitled to full pension. The order nowhere says that for granting him pension on completion of 28 years actual service, he would not be entitled to - 4 - disability pension, which is otherwise permissible, under CCS (Extra-ordinary) Pension Rules and various orders of the Government of India, issued under the said Rules. 8. When the petitioner had been granted invalid pension, in addition to service pension on his discharge, on completing 27 years of qualifying service, there cannot be any reason for not granting him extra ordinary disability pension, on completing his 33 years service, i.e. 28 years actual service and 5 years addition to that service, under Rule 48-B. Benefit of extra ordinary pension is available to all the employees, irrespective of the fact whether they are retired pre mature or on completion of maximum qualifying service, entitling them to full service pension. 9. As a result of the above discussion, writ petition is allowed and respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of extra ordinary disability pension and to pass appropriate orders, within three months, from the date of this order. A copy of this order be made available to learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, Shri Sandeep Sharma, by 21.3.2011 positively, so that he may send the same to the concerned authorities immediately. March 18, 2011 (PC) ( Surjit Singh ), J.