IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1629 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 30.11.2010 Union of India and others … Appellants Versus Pritam Singh …Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.M.Kumar Hon’ble Ms.Justice Ritu Bahri Present: Mr.Heman Aggarwal, Advocate 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. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 10.11.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge allowing disability pension to the writ petitioner-respondent who is an ex-serviceman. There is no dispute raised before us regarding the fact that the petitioner suffered from a disease known as Schizopherenic Reaction and was finally invalidiated out of Army service on 17.3.1968 by the Invalidiating Medical Board. These facts are evident from a bare perusal of order dated 9.11.2005 (Annexure P-2). Para 3 of the aforesaid order reads as under:- “1. Refer to your petition No.28 Oct 2005. 2. You were invalided out of service on account of SCHIZOPHERENIC REACTION (300)” Unsound Mind” w.e.f. 17th Mar 68. Your invaliding disability having neither been accepted as attributable to nor aggravated by military service by PCDA (P) Allahabad, the claim for your disability pension was rejected. 3. The appeal preferred by you against the decision of PCDA (P) Allahabad was also considered and rejected by the Government of India Ministry of Defence vide their letter No.198950/R.47/Pen-A dated 10 July 69. Therefore, no disability pension is admissible to you.” The authorities have pointed out that his appeal was considered by PCDA (P), Allahabad and was rejected by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence on 10.7.1969. The learned Single Judge has recorded that it was undisputed that the issue raised in the petition was covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in LPA No.547 of 2001, decided on LPA No.1629 of 2010 (O&M) 11.2.2009. The operative part of the judgment has also been quoted by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the petitioner has preferred to argue that there was delay as the order passed on 10.7.1969 rejecting the appeal of the writ petitioner-respondent, has not been challenged and the order dated 9.11.2005 (Annexure P-2) alone was made subject matter of the challenge. He has further submitted that the writ petition was filed on 9.11.2009 which was allowed on 10.11.2009 and there was no time to file written statement. We are not impressed with either of the aforesaid arguments because the question of limitation raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner pales into insignificant particularly when order dated 9.11.2005 (Annexure P-2) has been specifically challenged and the aforesaid order has also mentioned the earlier order passed in appeal on 10.7.1969. Moreover, the Union of India is not expected to raise the bar of limitation specially in matter of pension. Likewise, second argument raised by the learned counsel is equally without substance because there is nothing on record to show that the pleadings of the writ petitioner-respondent suffered from any factual error. Neither in the ground of appeal nor at the time of arguments, any such thing has been pointed out which may lead us to conclude that the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from any error of fact. It is indeed admitted by the appellant that the writ petitioner suffered from the disease of Schizopherenic Reaction and was boarded out of service on account thereof. The annexures which have been attached with the writ petition were self speaking and those facts were amply revealed by those annexures which have been issued by the appellant. There is thus, no merit in the appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M.Kumar ) Judge (Ritu Bahri) Judge 30.11.2010 sd 2