The central legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of invalid pension to Army personnel is subject to specific pre-requisites, including retirement/discharge on the ground of low medical category and lack of alternative employment compatible with the low medical category, as outlined in Regulations 197 and 198 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961.

S. N. AGGARWAL, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner in this writ of mandamus calls in question the impugned order dated 23. 7. 1996 passed by the Record Officer (respondent no. 3.)dismissing his claim for invalid pension. The petitioner has also sought for directions to the respondents to re-consider his case for grant of invalid pension to him w. e. f. the date of his discharge i. e. 3. 1. 1991 and to grant him invalid pension from the said date with arrears together with interest.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially enrolled in the Kumaon Regiment on 12. 11. 1969 and was discharged from there on 10. 6. 1973 (AN) under Rule 13 (3) Item III (iv) of Army rules, 1954 at his own request on extreme compassionate grounds after rendering 3 years and 211 days of service. Thereafter he was re-enrolled in Defence Security Corps (in short 'dsc') on 3. 1. 1981 and discharged from there on 3. 1. 1991 (AN) under Rule 13 (3)Item III (i) of Army rules, 1954 on completion of his term of engagement. The former service of 3 years and 211 days rendered by the petitioner with the kumaon Regiment was counted with DSC. He had, thus, rendered an aggregate qualifying service of 13 years and 240 days in both spells for which he was paid a sum of Rs. 13,095/= on account of Service Gratuity and Rs. 8973/= on account of retirement Gratuity as per orders then existed.

( 3 ) THE petitioner being in low medical category was brought before Release medical Board (RMB) held on 13. 9. 1990 in INHS Asvini, Bombay to assess his medical condition before discharge on completion of normal term of engagement. The Release Medical Board after physically examining him placed him under low medical category 'c' (permanent) and opined that his disease was a constitutional disorder and was neither attributable nor aggravated by military service.

( 4 ) THE petitioner has alleged in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the writ petition that he was discharged from service after declaring him medically unfit on completion of more than 10 years of service when he was placed in low medical category 'c' (permanent ). He has further stated that he was not given any alternative employment by the respondents because of his disease in low medical category.

( 5 ) THE petitioner had filed a representation before the concerned Army authorities in relation to his claim for invalid pension but his said representation was rejected vide impugned order dated 23. 7. 1996 (Annexure P-1 ). Aggrieved from there and relying on Regulations 197, 198 and 287 of the Pension regulations for the Army Part, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus against the respondents directing them to grant him invalid pension w. e. f. 3. 1. 1991 with all consequential benefits.

( 6 ) THE respondents have filed their counter affidavit in response to the show cause notice of this writ petitioner sent to them. They have denied the claim of the petitioner for grant of invalid pension prayed for by him in the writ petition. It is contended that as per provisions of Regulations 197 and 198 of Pension Rules for the Army, 1961 invalid pension/gratuity is admissible to an individual who is invalidated out of service on account of disability, which is neither attributable nor aggravated by military service. The stand of the respondents is that the petitioner is not eligible for invalid pension since he was not invalidated out of service but discharged under Rule 13 (3) Item III (i) of Army Rules, 1954 on completion of his normal term of engagement. The respondents have denied that the petitioner was discharged from service on medical grounds or on the ground that he was in low medical category at the time of his release as alleged in the petition. The respondents have prayed for the dismissal of this writ petition.

( 7 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record of this case carefully.

( 8 ) MR. TRIVEDI appearing for the petitioner