IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4070 of 2007 CHITRANJAN PANDEY, No. 14914504 Ex NK, P.S.- Naugachia, District-Bhagalpur (Bihar), Presently resident of Singaul Pokhar, P.O.-Ulao, District- Begusarai. Versus 1. UNION OF INDIA , through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India, Loknayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi-110003. 2. Integrated Hq of MoD(Army), Adjutant General’s Branch, Addl Dte Gen Personnel Services, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi-110011. 3. Army Headquarters (PS-5), Adjutant General’s Branch, Integrated HQ of Mod, DHQ, PO, New Delhi- 110011. 4. The Office-in-Charge, Records, The Mechanized infantry, PIN-900476. 5. The PCDA(P), Allahabad ----------- 4 13.04.2010 Heard Mr. Pramod Kumar Manbansh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Binay Kumar Pandey, learned C.G.C. representing the Union of India and its authorities. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order contained in letter dated 18.6.2004 as contained in Annexure-2 of the writ petition whereunder the Medical Board has rejected the claim of the petitioner for disability pension. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner joined the military service on 3.9.1988 and superannuated there from with effect from 31.1.2004 after completing 16 years and 10 months of pensionable service. Prior to - 2 - the retirement the petitioner appeared before the Medical Board for appreciation of his claim for disability pension. The Medical Board diagnosed the disease of the petitioner as psoriasis vulgaris and has assessed the percentage of disablement at 20% , copy of the Medical Board proceedings dated 7.10.2003 is placed at Annexure-1 of the writ petition. The petitioner in such circumstances applied for disability pension before the respondent No.5, Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (for short PCDA) (Pension), Allahabad in view of the Medical Board’s finding. The claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order passed on 18.6.2004 whereby the disability of the petitioner was assessed as constitutional in nature not related to service. Consequently, the invalidment /disability claim was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that paragraph 173 of the Army Pension Regulations, 1961 nodoubt provides that unless a disability is attributed to Army service or is aggravated there from and is estimated at 20% or above, the Armyman is not entitled for disability pension claim. Learned counsel with - 3 - reference to the findings of the Medical Board present at Annexure-1 of the writ petition submits that the disability of the petitioner has been assessed at 20% and that brings him within the consideration zone for grant of disability pension. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected on grounds that the same was not attributable to military service as is manifest from the impugned order dated 18.6.2004 (Annexure-2) and that it was constitutional in nature. The appeal preferred against the order of rejection of disability pension has also been rejected vide order dated 12.9.2005 (Annexure-B to the counter affidavit). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that whereas the case of the petitioner for disability pension has been rejected by the authorities on grounds of the disability being constitutional in nature and that it was not attributable to military service but in similar circumstances the respondents have allowed disability pension to Ex-Recruit Kulwant Singh who was sanctioned disability pension for life vide Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter No. 7 (1475)/98/D/(Pen. A and EC dated - 4 - 28.8.2001 and one Ex Sepoy Rajak Mohammad unit of Jammu & Kashmir Rules who was granted medical disability pension vide letter no. B/C 40502/2134/02/AG/P5-4(d) dated 11/12/2002 but on identical grounds the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. Learned counsel in support of his submission has also brought on record the order passed in the case of Rajak Mohd. placed at Annexure-3/1 of the proceeding and which shows that the said Armyman was assessed at 20% disablement for the same disease psoriasis vulgaris. The Medical Board proceeding is enclosed with the said Annexure and which shows that the percentage of assessment as recommended by the Medical Board in relation to the disability of Rajak Mohd. was 20 % and despite the disability not being attributed to military service but the said Rajak Mohd is drawing disability pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that similarly Kulwant Singh was also drawing disability pension. From the perusal of the counter affidavit, I find that the said categorical examples cited in paragraph 7 of the writ - 5 - petition has not been properly answered rather has been evaded. No proper justification has been made out by the respondents to distinguish the case of the petitioner with that of Kulwant Singh and Rajak Mohd. In the circumstances, the respondents cannot be allowed to adopt different yardstick(s) in respect of its Ex–serviceman suffering from the same disease ‘psoriasis vulgaris’. Indisputably, the disability assessed at 20% entitles the disabled to draw disability pension and admittedly the petitioner has been assessed at 20 % disablement for the said disease. The petitioner thus cannot be a discriminated amongst the same set of disabled employee(s) suffering from same ailment. Having regard to the circumstances aforesaid, the order rejecting the disability pension claim of the petitioner as contained in Annexure-2 is set aside and the respondent authorities of the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad is directed to process the case of the petitioner for disability pension and which has been - 6 - assessed for life as per the Medical Board’s recommendations and make payment thereof together with its arrears within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)