B. N. CHATURVEDI, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner was enrolled as non-combatant in the trade of sweeper in indian Army on 29th of April, 1964 in the Corps of Electrical and Mechanical engineers (EME ). He accepted combatantisation under the terms and conditions of service laid down in GOI, Ministry of Defence letter No. 19178/ix/trg. 2 (MP) (C)/1 of 16. 3/d (AO) dated 31. 12. 1971 with varied terms of engagement of 18 years of service or on attaining 45 years of age, whichever was earlier. He was discharged from service w. e. f. 1. 11. 1977 (F/n) under Rule 13. (3) (iii) (i) of Army Rules, 1954 on completion of 13 years and 174 days service and on attaining the age of 45 years. The petitioner was placed in low medical category `cee (Temp) w. e. f. 13. 8. 1976. He was brought before a Medical Board and was placed in medical category `cee (Prmt ). His disability `mylagia BACK was assessed at 33% for two years and was, accordingly, granted disability pension. The same was, however, stopped w. e. f. 24. 2. 1988 by CCDA (P) on Re-survey Medical Board, held in February, 1988, assessing his disability less than 20%. The decision in this regard was, however, communicated to the petitioner in August, 1990 only.

( 2 ) THE petitioner filed an appeal questioning the assessment of his disability less than 20% by the Resurvey Medical Board. He also requested the Chief of the army Headquarters, DGAFMS, (Annexure,p-3), for review medical board but no action was taken thereon. The petitioner, thereafter, by his application no. 7121355/js/pen dated 18. 4. 1992 approached the Controller General of Defence accounts (CCDA), R. K. Puram, New Delhi as well but no action was taken by them either.

( 3 ) THE finding of the Resurvey Medical Board assessing his disability less than 20% is termed by the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary as he was not given any chance to explain his position. He further pleads that the stoppage of disability pension without giving him an opportunity to represent his case was bad in law. According to him, he was granted disability for life and the same could not have been withdrawn. He complains that no review medical board was held by the respondents for more than ten years despite his request in that regard. His further plea is that in any case, even if his disability is assessed below 20%, he would still be entitled to the service element of disability pension in view of Army Regulations 173, 179,186,198 and 280 and Appendix II, Part I to the Pensions Rules.

( 4 ) THE stand of the respondents, in their counter-affidavit, is that as the petitioner was discharged from service on completion of his term of engagement and as he had rendered less than 15 years of service he was not entitled to service element of disability pension and could draw disability element only, in addition to service gratuity under AI 184/69. The disability element was also discontinued by CCDA (P), allahabad since petitioner s disability was re-assessed at less than 20% by the resurvey Medical Board. It is added that on a legal notice dated 17. 10. 1992 from the petitioner, his case, with parawise comments, was forwarded to the Army headquarters vide EME Record s letter No. 7121355/cct/nd-II dated 18. 11. 1992 which was, however, after careful examination, in consultation with Ministry of defence rejected vide Army Headquarters letter No. D/12048/294 EME Pens. dated 13. 5. 1993. The petitioner made several representations thereafter for grant of service element which were suitably replied to informing him that his request for service element could not be acceded to in view of AI 184/69 and para 173 of Pension regulations.

( 5 ) THE petitioner is aggrieved by a) non-grant of service element of disability pension and b) on account of discontinuance of disability element of disability pension with effect from 24th of February, 1988.

( 6 ) THE petitioner was discharged from service w. e. f. 1. 11. 1977 (FN) under under Rule 13. (3) (iii) (i) of Army Rules,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document