IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 1366 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 7, 2010 Union of India and others …Appellants Versus Ex-Sepoy Baldev Singh …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Ms. Anjali Kukar, Standing Counsel for UOI, for the appellants. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 13.11.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the writ petitioner-respondent is entitled to grant of disability pension. The respondents have been directed to settle the claim of the petitioner-respondent. However, the claim has been restricted to three years preceding the filing of the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has found that the matter is covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of A.J.S. Chaudhary v. Union of India, 1991 (1) RSJ 778 and another judgment in the case of Surjit Singh v. The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, 1999 (4) RSJ 385. 2. On facts it was not disputed that the writ petitioner-respondent was enrolled in Army on 15.7.1976 being medically fit. He worked in various parts of L.P.A. No. 1366 of 2010 (O&M) the Country. While serving in the Ganganagar (Rajasthan) and undergoing Battle Inoculation, he suffered fits during battle exercise. Eventually, after treatment in the Command Hospital, Chandimandir for three months, he was put in the lowest medical category ‘EEE (P)’ and recommended to be invalidated out of service through the Invaliding Medical Board. On 13.6.1981, he was invalided out of army service with 30% disability for life after rendering 4 years and 333 days total service. On 8.10.1981, his claim for grant of disability pension was rejected by the appellants. The appeal made by him was also rejected vide order dated 28.1.1982. After extracting the observations made in the cases of A.J.S. Chaudhary (supra) and Surjit Singh (supra), the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that the petitioner developed the problem after joining the army service. 3. Having heard learned counsel we are of the view that there is no legal infirmity in the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge warranting admission of the instant appeal. The judgments of this Court rendered in the cases of A.J.S. Chaudhary (supra) and Surjit Singh (supra) are fully applicable and the learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to point out any distinguishing feature warranting non-applicability of the aforementioned judgment to the present case. We have repeatedly asked Ms. Anjali Kukar that what is the object of filing the appeal once the matter was covered, there is no satisfactory explanation. Therefore, the appeal does not merit admission and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) December 7, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 2