Back
2008 Supreme(Raj) 1259
[Citation : 2009(2) RLW 1732 (Raj.)]
(Rajasthan High Court)
Laxman Ram Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Panwar, J.)
HONBLE H.R. PANWAR, J.
Laxman Ram
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 834 of 2006, decided on 12.12.2008
Ram Kishore Soni, for Petitioner;
M.S. Godara on behalf of V.K. Mathur, for Respondents
Headnote:Navy (Pension) Regulation, 1964, Regulation 101; Casualty Pension Awards, 1982 — Denial of disability pension — Sailor in Indian Navy — After 4 years of service suffered Retinitis Pegmentosa — The disability was to the extent of 80% — Discharged from service on medical ground — Held — The Paragraph 7(b) of the Appendix II of the Regulations drawing presumption about disease being attributable to or aggravated by Naval services is rebutable, but it has not been rebutted by any evidence except the proceedings of medical Board, which also do not rebut such presumption, contrary it supports his case that at the time of recruitment he was not suffering from any disease of vision — It can be presumed that the disease suffered was attributable to or aggravated by Naval services — Entitled to disability pension — Order quashed — Directed to pay disability pension within three months. (Paras 20 & 21)
Writ petition allowed.
ukSlsuk ?isaku? fofu;e] 1964] fofu;e] 101( nq?kZVuk isaku vf/kfu.kZ;] 1982 & fu%kDrrk isaku ls badkj djuk & ukS lsuk esa ukfod & pkj o"kZ dh lsok ds ipkr~ ^^jsfVfufVl fiXesjkslk** ls xzflr gqvk & fu%kDrrk 80% dh lhek rd Fkh & fpfdRlh; vk/kkj ij lsok ls fueqZDr fd;k & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & fofu;e ds ifjfk"B -II ds in 7 ?[k?] tks ukS lsuk ds dkj.k ;k ukS lsuk ls mRiUu gqbZ chekjh ds ckjs esa mi/kkj.kk djrk gS] og [k.Mu djus ;ksX; gS] ysfdu esfMdy cksMZ dh dk;Zokgh ds flok; fdlh Hkh lk{; ls bldk [k.Mu ugha fd;k x;k] og Hkh ,slh mi/kkj.kk dk [k.Mu ugha djrk] blds foijhr ;g izkFkhZ ds ekeys dk leFkZu djrk gS fd lsok esa HkrhZ ds le; og n`f"V lEcU/kh fdlh Hkh chekjh ls xzflr ugha Fkk & ;g mi/kkj.kk dh tk ldrh gS fd xzflr chekjh ukS lsuk ds dkj.k ;k ukSlsuk ls gh mRiUu gqbZ gS & fukDrrk isaku ds gdnkj gS & vknsk vfHk[kf.Mr fd;k & rhu ekg ds Hkhrj fu%kDrrk isaku nsus ds funsZk fn;sA ?in la[;k 20 o 21?
;kfpdk Lohdkj dhA
.
2. Briefly stated the facts and circumstances of the case which are relevant and necessary for the decision of this writ petition are that the petitioner was recruited in Indian Navy on 04.02.1985 after thorough medical examination by the Medical authorities of the Navy, he was found medically fit in medical category “AYE” and at the time of his recruitment he was not suffering from any disease or disability. On being medically examined by the medical authorities of the Navy at the time of recruitment, his vision was 6/6 of both the eyes. The petitioner while in service and performing the Naval duties, suffered Retinitis Pegmentosa and was examined by the Medical Board of respondent after having rendered satisfactory services of over four years and five months he was discharged on 30.05.1989 vide Annex.P-1 on medical ground. According to the petitioner, the petitioner suffered from the disease Retinitis Pegmentosa while performing the naval duties and therefore, the disease for which the petitioner has been discharged and invalidated was attributable and aggravated by naval services. The disability suffered by the petitioner while in naval services has been assessed to 80% arising out of and during the course of his employment with the Indian Navy and was directly attributable to the naval services. However, the disability of the petitioner has increased after his invalidment from Indian Navy. By the instant writ petition, a challenge has been made by the petitioner to the denial of disability pension to him.
3. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents stating therein that the disability suffered by the petitioner was neither attributable to nor aggravated by the naval services and therefore, the competent authority rejected the claim of the petitioner for disability pension vide its order dated 29.05.1990 and the same was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 22.06.1990 Annex.R/1. According to the respondents, Regulation 101 of the Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964 read with the provisions of para 7.2 of the Government of India letter dated 31.1.2001, the disability pension may be granted to a person who is invalidated out from the service on account of disability which is attributable to or aggravated by naval service. According to the respondents, para 6 of Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Award, 1982 (for short the Rules of 1982 hereinafter) provides that the disablement shall be accepted as due to military service when it is certified by appropriate medical authority that the same is due to a wound, injury or disease which is attributable to military service or existed before or arose during military service and has been and remains aggravated thereby. According to the respondents since the petitioner was not entitled for disability pension and therefore, the benefits admissible to him i.e. invalid gratuity amounting to Rs. 4240/- was paid to the petitioner.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of recruitment of the petitioner by the Naval authorities, the petitioner underwent thorough medical examination by the Medical authorities of the Navy and on being extensively medical examined, he was found medically fit in medical category “AYE” and at the time of his entering/ recruitment in Navy, the petitioner was not suffering from any disease or disability and therefore, whatever the disability, the petitioner has suffered is while in naval services and the disease suffered by him namely Retinitis Pegmentosa has occurred while in service almost after serving mo
