IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15701 of 2005 BIDYA BHUSHAN SON OF SRI KESHO MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILAGE BARAICHAK PATAM, P.O.- PATAM, P.S. NAYA RAMNAGAR, DISTRICT- MUNGER Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUG THE UNDER SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 2. THE UNDER SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 3. THE CHAIRMAN, PENSION APPELLATE COMMITTEE, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 4. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, RECORDS, AIR FORCE, RECORD OFFICE, SUBROTO PARK, NEW DELHI-10 5. THE CHIEF C.D.A. (PENSION CELL) G.S./VIII SECTOR, ALLAHABAD ----------- 5 28.10.2010 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondent-Union of India. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15th December, 1987 as contained in Annexure-1, whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of disability pension was rejected on the ground that the ailment on account of which the petitioner was discharged from Military service was not attributable to Military service nor the ailment aggravated while in service. The first appeal as well as the second appeal preferred by the petitioner under the Army Regulation were considered and upon consideration the appeals of the petitioner were rejected on the basis of the medical report to the effect that the ailment due to which the petitioner was discharged from service vide letter dated 20th March, 1989 as contained in Annexure-2 followed by Defence Minister’s Appellate Committee’s appeal order dated 6th - 2 - June, 2005 vide Annexure-6. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the medical reports as referred in the order rejecting the disability pension was not available to the petitioner, and as such, petitioner is not in position to say as to whether there is any such medical report or not. It is further submitted that the above medical report was also not brought on record by filing the counter affidavit. Learned counsel relies upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1988 (SC), 2181 for the proposition that in case of any controversy in law in question it is incumbent on the part of the party to bring the relevant document on record. Learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India on the other hand submits that the controversy which has been raised in this case is as to whether the ailment which the petitioner was suffering at the time of discharge was attributable to the Military service or not. It is further submitted that from the impugned orders it would appear that the authority refusing to allow disability pension as also the appellate authority while considering his first appeal as well as the Defence Minister’s Appellate Committee while considering the second appeal held concurrently that the ailment which the petitioner was suffering at the time of discharge was - 3 - not attributable to the Military service or it aggravated while in Military service. Considering the submissions of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the matter relates to the question of facts as to whether the ailment suffered by the petitioner was attributable to Military service or not. On going through the impugned orders, it appears that both the appellate authority have considered the appeal of the petitioner on the basis of the medical report to the effect that the ailment which the petitioner suffered at the time of discharge was not attributable to the Military service and as such the appeals of the petitioner were rejected. In the above findings of the appellate authorities, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the matter. The writ application accordingly stands dismissed. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)