IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA L.P.A. No. 86 of 2007 Decided on 29th June, 2010. Union of India and others …Appellants Versus Prem Lal …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the appellants: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India. For the Respondent: Mr. P.M. Chauhan, vice counsel ____________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Respondents in CWP No. 248 of 2006 have come up in appeal. The issue pertains to the disability pension. The writ petition was invalidated out of service on 20th July, 1967 with disability of Pulmanery Tuberculosis. It is not in dispute that disability was assessed at 100% for one year and that the same was attributed to military service. Accordingly, the writ petitioner was granted disability pension @ Rs. 47/- per month and service element. The disability to the extent of 100%, that was assessed for one year, was reviewed from time to time and it continued upto 3rd July, 1996. The writ petitioner was brought before the Re-survey Medical Board on 7th May, 1996. Admittedly, the said Re- survey Medical Board re-assessed the disability as 20% permanent. But, it is seen that the Medical Advisor (Pension), attached to PCDA, Allahabad, re-assessed the disability to be less than 20% and on the basis of that assessment, PCDA ordered that disability pension could not be continued. 2. It appears, this order of PCDA was not duly taken note of by the pension disbursing authority and the same was being paid without any interruption. While so, the Army Headquarters, as per proceedings, dated 7th February, 2001, directed that all the low medical category personnel, who had been granted disability pension, should be re- assessed by a Re-survey Medical Board, for one time final award of the disability for life. The writ petitioner was reviewed by the Re-survey Medical Board, thus constituted, on 22nd August, 2003. The said Medical Board re-assessed the disability as less than 20% for life. But, it is seen that the Army Headquarters, in appeal, directed for re-assessment by a fresh Re-survey Medical Board and that Re-survey Medical Board duly assessed the disability of the petitioner on 3rd March, 2005 and according to them the writ petitioner suffered 20% disability for life. It is also seen that the PCDA, Allahabad had decided to accept the report of the Re-survey Medical Board, dated 3rd March 2005 and disability pension was granted to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 310/- per month for life by communication, dated 31st July, 2005. Thereafter, the appellants took steps to recover the amounts, already disbursed to the petitioner between 4th July 1986 to 31st July, 2004 to the tune of Rs. 1,75,904/-. That was challenged by the writ petitioner. As per judgment, under appeal, the writ petition was allowed. Thus aggrieved, the Union of India and others, before us, have come in appeal. 3. Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India strenuously contended that the writ petitioner has received the pension during the aforesaid period of July, 1986 to July, 2004 without any valid pension payment order. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India is right in his submission. But, the question is, to what extent the poor pensioner is responsible ? As far as the pension is concerned, it has been disbursed uninterruptedly right from 1967 and he had been keeping on receiving the same on the bonafide belief that his case had been duly considered by appropriate authority for grant of pension. If any mistake or inadvertence happened in the office of the appellants, the poor pensioner cannot be made responsible. 4. There is another angle also for tackling the same issue since we are of the view that the writ petitioner is otherwise entitled to succeed. As per the report of the duly constituted Medical Board, the writ petitioner is suffering from 20% disability for life. But strangely, the appellants have taken the stand that 20% disability for life is only w.e.f. 3rd March, 2005, the date of the decision. It has to be noted that the writ petitioner had been assessed 100% disability right from 1967 and that continued upto 1996. In 1996 also, the Re-survey Medical Board had assessed the disability upto 20% permanent. On what basis the same was reduced to less than 20% by the PCDA, is not clear. Be that as it may. If a Re-survey Medical Board, duly constituted by the Army Headquarters, could assess the disability of the petitioner to 20% permanent for life, it could only be understood that the disability existed after 1996 also. There is no case for the appellants that the disability increased from 1996 to 20% in 2005. It would be highly unreasonable to hold that 20% permanent disability for life is only from 2004 and it would not refer to life of the writ petitioner prior to 2003 till 1996, till which time the writ petitioner had 100% disability. Therefore, in that view of the matter also, it has only to be held that the assessment made on 22nd March, 2003 and duly accepted by the PCDA that the petitioner suffered 20% disability for life is w.e.f. 1996. 5. That apart, it is also seen that recovery, which is sought to be made, was without any notice to the writ petitioner. For all these reasons, we find that the view taken by the leaned Single Judge is certainly a plausible view and we do not find any legal infirmity warranting interference in the appeal. Thus, there is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 29th June, 2010(K) (Justice Kuldip Singh), Judge