IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2008 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 7714 of 2008(R) PETITIONER: O.P.NAMBIAR, EX.LANDSNAIK NO.6581553, AGED 79 YEARS, SON OF LATE MR.NARAYANA KURUP, RESIDING AT A-32, DHARMAPURI COLONY, P.O.THOTTADA, KANNUR-670 007, KERALA STATE. BY ADV. SMT.JISHAMOL CLEETUS SRI.V.M.MICHAEL SMT.R.DYANA SRI.V.A.SHAJI RESPONDENTS: 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SENA BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. THE SENIOR RECORD OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE SENA POLICE CORPS ABHILEKH KARYALAYA, COPS OF MILITARY POLICE RECORDS, PIN-900 493, C/O.56 APO. 3. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (PENSION), OFFICE OF THE PCDA, ALLAHABAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7714 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner, who was enrolled in the army on 18.10.1951 was invalidated on 7.11.1958. Thereupon his disability was assessed at 100% for one year and the same was made attributable to military service. According to him, the disability pension was notified. This continued up to the year 1963. But, it seems that the petitioner did not appear for re-survey by the Medical Board in 1963 and therefore, his disability pension was discontinued. 2. It seems that the petitioner filed an appeal after the lapse of 15 years. The Medical Board, Bangalore did not accept the certificate. Petitioner, thereupon, preferred an appeal and he was directed to appear before the Review Medical Board. The Board had assessed the disability at 30% and it seems that the recommendations of the Board were accepted by the Government of India and it was decided that the petitioner should be granted disability pension assessed at 30% for life with effect from 29.5.1999. Ext.P5 order evidences this aspect. But W.P.(C).NO.7714/08 :: 2 :: the order also makes it clear that the petitioner is not entitled for service element and disability element for the period of 20.10.1963 to 28.05.1999. This aspect has been challenged in the writ petition. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. 4. A reading of Ext.P5 shows that the issue has been considered comprehensively by the competent authority. The review medical board, which examined the petitioner in 1997 assessed his disability at 30%. The Government of India, accepting the recommendation had passed orders. It seems that the Government of India had taken into account relevant facts while directing that the degree of disability at 30% be granted for life with effect from 29.5.1999. 5. It would not have been possible for the Review Medical Board to assess the disability of the petitioner for the period prior to 1999 because the petitioner had not appeared before them earlier. The earlier certificate of the Medical Board which met at W.P.(C).NO.7714/08 :: 3 :: Bangalore apparently had certified 'nil disability' as far as the petitioner is concerned. It is thereafter that the petitioner was directed to be re-certified by the Medical Board in Pune. This ultimately led to Ext.P9. To ask the Medical Board now to certify the degree of disability of the petitioner for a period prior to the date on which the petitioner was examined will be asking them to do an impossible thing. At any rate, the petitioner himself is to be blamed for the state of affairs, inasmuch as that, there was a delay of 15 years on his part seeking an extension of the disability pension. For all these reasons, I do not find any error in Ext.P5. The writ petition is bereft of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge