IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA L.P.A No. 64 of 2007. Date of decision: 20.5.2010. Union of India & Others. …Appellants. Versus Diwakar Dutt Sharma. ..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Appellants: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India. For the Respondent: Mr. Sharwan Dogra, Advocate. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The appellant, Union of India, was the first respondent in C.W.P. No. 559 of 2002. The petitioner approached this Court praying for a direction for grant of disability pension. Learned Single Judge set aside the order of rejection of the claim of the petitioner for pension and allowed the Writ Petition. 2. Aggrieved the Union of India has thus come up in this appeal. In view of the order that we propose to pass in this appeal, we do not think it proper to go in detail into the facts of the case. The undisputed factual position is that the writ petitioner had been duly assessed by the Release Medical Board and the said Medical Board assessed the disability to the tune of 50%. According to the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, the opinion rendered by the Release Medical Board is not binding on the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) Allahabad and it is always open to the said 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 Authority to have a review of the opinion thus rendered by the Medical Board with the assistance of his Medical Advisor. No doubt it is not binding on him. But we fail to understand how an assessment made by the duly constituted Medical Board of experts can be brushed aside by the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts, who does not have an opportunity to see the patient, to observe the patient, to examine the patient or to assess the disability through his medical advisor, whereas the Medical Board consisting of expert doctors have done all these and have made their assessment of disability. 3. Unless the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) had validly constituted a Review Medical Board for physically examining the patient and assessing the disability, the assessment by the medical board of experts cannot be ignored or varied. This has not been done in this case. Therefore, the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), without any justifiable reason, as indicated above, can not ignore the report of Release Medical Board. That approach is certainly arbitrary and unreasonable. Hence we do not find any infirmity in the judgment, which is accordingly dismissed. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. May 20, 2010 (Justice Dev Darshan Sud), (aks/r) Judge.