Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking payment of disability pension. Petitioner was enrolled in Indian Army as a Sepoy on 11.4.1979 . Having been invalidated out of service in category EEE, he was discharged from the army on 22.6.1982. The petitioner served the Indian Army for a total period of 3 years, 2 months and 12 days.

3. Shri K.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was not granted the disability pension even though the Medical Board, on whose recommendation he was invalidated out of service, clearly opined that his disability was aggravated by military service and that he sustained 20% disability, both of which factors satisfied the requirement of clause 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army. It was argued that petitioner submitted appeal to the Government of India on 19.1.1985 which was rejected by letter dated 5.12.1985. He thereafter filed another appeal which too was rejected. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Brigadier (Retd.) V.K. Sarda, Vr. C. vs. Union of India & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4033/02 and argued that this Court in aforesaid case held that opinion of the Medical Board cannot be reversed and its findings on the question of aggravation of disease by military service could not be reversed by the appellate medical authority. The writ petitioner in that case was held entitled to disability pension.

4. Shri M.S. Raghav, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and argued that petitioner was discharged from army service on 22.6.1982 having been found unfit for further military service. He had rendered service of only 3 years and 72 days, whereas, qualifying period of service for pension under the rules is 15 years. It was argued that the opinion of the Invalidating Medical Board was that the disability suffered by the petitioner was not attributable to, but aggravated by stress and strain of military service, which assessed his disability at 20%. However, as per the Army Order 417/74, it was for the competent authority i.e. the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions) Allahabad, either to sanction or reject the disability claim and accordingly the matter was forwarded to him and he rejected the disability claim. Reference in this connection was made to the letter dated 16.10.1982 and Pension Regulations for the Army Part-I, 1961. It was argued that the findings of the Medical Board are recommendatory in nature and not to be taken as binding or final. The Chief controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions) Allahabad, while adjudicating the case before rejecting or accepting a disability pension claim invariably takes into account specialist medical opinion in each case from Medical Advisor (Pensions) attached to them. The petitioner in any case approached this Court 13 years after the date of his discharge. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

6. The Supreme Court in Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) & Ors. vs. S. Balachandran Nair - (2005) 13 SCC 128 has authoritatively held that for the purpose of deciding whether or not a disability is attributable to or aggravated by the military service, opinion of the Medical Board has to be respected and cannot be brushed aside. This Court in Brigadier (Retd.) V.K. Sarda, supra had the occasion to deal with a case where in the similar manner, the Medical Board opined that disease suffered by petitioner was aggravated by military service. In that context the argument raised by the Union of India that the opinion of the Medical Board could be reversed by the Chief Controller of Defence, Pension was rejected, holding thus:-

"What this Court is called upon to examine in the present matter is that whether the disease ISD with which the petitioner was found to be suffering was a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document