JUDGMENT :

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

THE APPEAL

1. We are called upon to examine in this appeal by special leave preferred by the Union of India, the Director General, Central Reserve Police Force¹[CRPF] and two other officers²[appellants] of the CRPF, the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 23rd December 2014³[impugned judgment] of a Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh⁴[High Court] dismissing the appellants’ intra-court appeal [Letters Patent Appeal No. 25 of 2009⁵[LPA]], which was laid by them to challenge the judgment and order of a Single Judge dated 11th August 2008 allowing the respondent’s writ petition⁶[Civil Writ Petition No. 1371 of 2005] directing that he be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.

FACTS

2. The facts are simple and undisputed.

3. Respondent was enrolled in the CRPF as a Constable (Driver) in 1985, upon being found medically fit at the material time. He continued in service until 1996, when he developed an ophthalmic condition. A medical examination conducted at the Government Hospital, Jammu, revealed that the respondent was suffering from Disseminated Choroiditis and Retinal Atrophic Patches with Macular Involvement, resulting in complete blindness in the left eye and partial impairment of vision in the right eye.

4. In view of the respondent's medical condition, the Chief Medical Officer, Station Hospital, CRPF, Jammu, recommended that his case be placed before the Departmental Rehabilitation Board. Upon assessment, the respondent was found unfit to perform driving as well as combatant duties and was, accordingly, referred to the Medical Invalidation Board in 1997. The Medical Board constituted at the Base Hospital, CRPF, Hyderabad, conducted a medical examination of the respondent and concluded that he was permanently incapacitated and unfit for further service in any capacity in the CRPF.

5. Pursuant thereto, a notice was served on the respondent calling upon him to submit a representation, if any, against the proposed action of medical invalidation. In response, the respondent submitted an application seeking grant of full financial and service benefits upon his invalidation from service. Thereafter, by an order dated 11th March, 1998, the respondent was medically invalidated from service. Subsequently, on 15th October, 2000, the respondent submitted a further representation seeking redressal of his grievance; however, the same came to be rejected by the competent authority.

6. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent approached the High Court with a writ petition⁷[Civil Writ Petition No. 206 of 2003]. The High Court disposed of the same on 5th January, 2005 with a direction to the appellants to consider and decide the grievance expressed in the legal notice submitted on behalf of the respondent, on or before 15th February, 2005. Pursuant thereto, the appellants reconsidered the matter but once again rejected the respondent’s claim vide an order dated 27th June, 2005, holding that the ailment suffered by him was neither attributable to nor aggravated by service conditions. It was further held that the respondent was entitled only to a lump-sum payment of Rs. 15,000/- in accordance with the applicable rules, as his disability was not found to be attributable to his service.

7. Thereafter, the respondent instituted the writ petition, out of which this appeal arises. He prayed for directions to grant invalid / disability pension on account of 100% disability from the date of his discharge together with consequential benefits and interest @ 18% per annum and to constitute a fresh Medical Board for assessment of his disability; and to declare the orders of medical invalidation and rejection of his prayers as null and void.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE SINGLE JUDGE

8. The Single Judge heard the contesting parties on affidavits. In allowing the writ petition on contest, vide the judgment and order dated 11th August, 2008, the Single Judge travelled beyond the pleadings and th