R.S.A No. 3420 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 3420 of 2008 Date of decision : July 20, 2009 Union of India and others, ...... Appellant (s) v. No 1456192-P Ex. Naik (Rec/Mechanic) Satyawan, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. S.K.Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Surinder Sheoran, Advocate for the respondent. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for grant of disability pension. It is not disputed that the respondent had applied for voluntary retirement/discharge on compassionate ground. His application was allowed but before he was retired he was diagnosed with tuberculosis and the medical board found that the said disease was attributable to military service. However, this subsequent fact was not considered by the R.S.A No. 3420 of 2008 ::2:: authorities and he was retired. Counsel for the appellants has proposed the following questions :- “ a) Whether a person discharged at his own request on compassionate ground before completion of the terms of engagement is entitled for disability pension apart from service pension ? b) Whether findings recorded by both the learned Courts below are based on evidence and record produced by the appellants ? c) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent is liable to be dismissed in view of the provisions contained in Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 ? d) Whether the present suit is maintainable in view of the specific bar provided under Section 4 of the Pension Act, 1871 ?” The learned lower appellate Court has held that even if the respondent had applied for voluntary retirement/discharge and at that time he was not suffering from any disease but later, before he was actually retired he was diagnosed with a disease which was duly found by the medical board to be attributable to military service, it was incumbent upon the appellants to consider his case for invalidation so as to grant him the benefits of disability pension. In my opinion, no fault can be found with the reasoning of the learned lower appellate Court. By definition, such provisions are intended to be the pieces of beneficial legislation and would, R.S.A No. 3420 of 2008 ::3:: thus, have to be construed broadly rather than restrictively. In somewhat similar circumstances, in CWP No.14629 of 2006, Darshan Singh versus Union of India and others, decided on 17.3.2008, a Division Bench of this Court held as follows :- “ Admittedly, the disability suffered by the petitioner is attributable to and aggravated by military service. The question involved is- whether on account of seeking discharge at own request, the petitioner has lost his right to claim disability pension although the disability is attributable and aggravated on account of military service. Had the petitioner been invalidated out of military service on account of 20% disability, he would have been granted the disability pension along with service element of pension. Merely because the petitioner has attained discharge at his own request, it will not be a ground to reject his claim of disability pension.” Counsel for the appellants has argued that in Darshan Singh's case (supra), the person was in low medical category when he applied. In my opinion, though this distinction is there yet it is not such a distinction so as to take the case out of the ambit of ex-position of law extracted above. Even otherwise, the fact is that the respondent did suffer an illness; that the illness was attributable to military service; and that but for his application for voluntary retirement/discharge he would have to be invalidated on this account. In the circumstances, I hold the proposed questions against the R.S.A No. 3420 of 2008 ::4:: appellant and dismiss this appeal with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been disposed of, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 20, 2009. JUDGE `kk'