A disability pension may be granted to an individual who is invalided from service on account of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service and is assessed at 20 per cent or over.

1. - The petitioner was enrolled in Army in March 1971 in Medical Category AYE. At the time of enrolment he was not suffering from any decease. It is not denied that he had a war service in the year 1971-72 and again 1973-74. The petitioner submits that he was also awarded a senior Sewa Medal Jammu & Kashmir Sangram Medal for participating in Indo-Pakisthan War in 1971. It is the case of the petitioner that a damage to his left ear was caused because of bombardment during Pakistan war. The petitioner was discharged from service in low Medical category 'CEE' permanently on 20.11.1976 after rendering service of five years and 269 days due to Sensory Neural Deafness (Left ear) with 30% disability. It is the case of the petitioner that disability was attributed to because of military service and, therefore, he was entitled to disability pension as per regulations. For the reason that he was discharged in low medical category "CEE", he is to be considered and treated as invalidated from service as per rules.

2. The petitioner had been demanding the medical papers, but the same had not been provided to him and, therefore, the petitioner could not approach the court with the accurate facts. The petitioner is relying on number of authorities for grant of disability pension under Rule 173 of Appendix 2 and Rule 7-B of the Rules and Regulations 173 read with Para 1 and 7(b) of the pension Regulations as framed by the Army.

3. The case of the petitioner was referred to the CCDA(P), but was rejected. It is the submission of the petitioner that for the reason that he was enrolled under Category 'A' and discharged in category 'C', therefore, he was deemed to be invalidated from service because of disease attributable or aggravated by service as per para 1 and 7-B of Appendix of Regulation and for this purpose relies on a judgment reported on (1) 1991(2) SLR 512. The petitioner had been asking for certain documents as mentioned at page 7 of the writ petition, but the petitioner was not supplied any of the document nor, the medical report nor the recommendations and, therefore, he could not file the second appeal to the Government of India within a reasonable time. Appeal was forwarded to the Government for orders under the provisions of Reg. 88(A) of the Regulations. His request was rejected on 3.7.1995 vide Annexure-14 for being belated as his requests already stood rejected time and again. The petitioner submitted the legal notice and filed the present writ petition. The petitioner has cited as precedents the cases of number of employees who were similarly situated but whose cases were considered for disability pension. The petitioner cites names of Shri Megh Singh, Richhpal Jat and Jagmal Singh etc. The petitioner has prayed for disability pension from 26.11.1976 with interest till payment.

4. Reply has been filed by the respondents. An objection has been taken that the petitioner has approached this court at a very belated stage, even though vide Annexure-10 the petitioner was informed on 31.1.1995 that his case for disability pension cannot be considered and is rejected. It is stated in the written statement that the disability pension is considered on the assessment of the disability by the Board of Officers of Medical Service in the Army taking into account the nature of duty, place of duty and dimatic/weather conditions and the medical authority is competent authority to recommend for disability pension. It is stated that the disease Sensory Neural Deafness (Left ear) is neither attributable nor aggravated because of military service.

5. The respondents had also filed certain documents along with the Misc. application dated 14.11.1996 filed in this court relating to the medical status i.e. AFMSF-16. Column 21 of the medical form relates to the fact whether the disability pension is recommended or not. Against Column 21 it was mentioned that the case of the petitioner is recommended for death cum retirement gratuity/disability pe