IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8651 of 2009 Date of Decision: May 29, 2009 Nazar Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Union of India & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This civil writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Order dated 20.8.2008 (Annexure P-1) whereby disability pension has been rejected to the petitioner. On the second count, prayer made is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2 i.e. Additional Director General of Personal Services (PS-4), Adjutant General’s Branch, Integrated Headquarter of M.O.D. (Army) DHQ, New Delhi, to decide the CWP No.8651 of 2009 [2] statutory appeal filed by the petitioner on 19.12.2008 vide Grounds of Appeal, Annexure P-2. Learned counsel contends that claim of the petitioner for award of disability pension was rejected on the ground that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. The petitioner filed a statutory appeal which however has been kept pending. Notice of motion in regard to the second prayer only. Ms. Anjali Kukar, Central Government Standing Counsel, on the asking of the Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Copy of the petition has been handed over to her. I have considered the issue. So far as the illegality of Annexure P-1 is concerned, statutory appeal is still pending and therefore, I deem it appropriate not to deal with the first prayer. In regard to the second prayer for getting a decision on the statutory appeal, surely, the petitioner is entitled to a decision on the appeal within a reasonable period. The appeal was filed in December 2008 and the same is still pending. CWP No.8651 of 2009 [3] Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent No.2 is directed to deal with the statutory appeal (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner and take a decision thereon within three months of receipt of certified copy of the order. (AJAI LAMBA) May 29, 2009 JUDGE avin