The amended Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules allow invalid pension eligibility without a ten-year service requirement, as clarified by the Supreme Court.

Order :

1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

“(a) The order dated the 23^rd May 94 i.e. Ex.-1 be quashed.

(b) The Respondents be directed to reinstate the Petitioner in service with continuity of service with back full wages. Without prejudice to the above submissions.

(c) The respondents be directed to rehabiliated the petitioner in other job, or

(d) The Respondents be directed to grant in-validated pension.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Constable on 26^th June 1985 and in vaildated out from service with effect from 23^rd May 1994. The petitioner is examined by the Medical Board of G.C.I. Hospital CRPF, Ajmer and found that the vision of right eye and left eye is defective. But the Board did not give opinion to invaildated out from service on this ground. The respondent No.3 vide his letter No. M-III-1/93-EC-I dated 17^th December 1993 requested the D.I.G. of CRPF that the petitioner is requested for his meeting with Inspector General of Police for rehabilitation in other job. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 referred the petitioner to AIIMS, New Delhi for op-thalmic services and for examination and medical treatment. According to the vision test held on 25^th March 93, the vision of the petitioner was found right eye 6/18 and left eye 6/6 and adviced the respondent No.3 to sent the petitioner back and asked for checking of eyes on 3.12.93. But the respondent No.3 did not sent the petitioner for medical rechecking and in-validated out from service the petitioner vide order dated 23^rd May, 1994 (Ex.-1). Thereafter, the D.I.G. CRPF, Ajmer wrote letter No.P-III 15/93 EC-1 dated 7^th January, 1994 to the Senior Medical Officer, GC-1, CRPF Hospital, Ajmer to constitute a formal medical board to examine medical fitness of constrable Kharta Ram for examination of his case for rehabilitation by the Department Re-habilitation Board.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has served the respondents about nine years and has not completed the ten years of requisite service for the purpose of availing benefit of pension. He further submits that the Rule No.38 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 has been amended subsequently on account of which the service of ten years is not required in order to avail the benefit of pension. He also submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. P.A. Thomas (SLP (C) 20339/2011) decided on 14.03.2019 has held that on account of amendment in the Rule 38 of Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972, service of ten years is not required in order to avail the benefit of pension and in the personnal have been retired on account of invalidation and also have not rendered the service of ten years are also eligible for pension to avail the benefit of pension.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the benefit of invalidated pension was not extended to the petitioner solely on the ground that the petitioner has not complied the service of ten years however, not in a position to refute the fact that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. P.A. Thomas has allowed the SLP while allowing the petition who have not completed the ten years to avail the benefit of invalidated pension.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. The Hon’ble Apex Court has adjudicated the issue that the personnals who are invalidated out of service and have not rendered service of ten years are also eligible to avail the benefit of invalidated pension. The case of the petitioner is similarly situated to the case P.A. Thomas (supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.A. Thomas (supra) has held as under:-

“Rules 38 and 49 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 have been amended on 4.1.2019 in the following manner:-

”2. In the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 –

(i) in rule 38, for sub-rule (1) and s