JUDGMENT :

SATYEN VAIDYA, J.

1. By way of instant appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment dated 17.12.2018 passed by Hon'ble Single Judge in case CWP No. 1643 of 2016 titled as Bhisham Singh vs. Union of India and Others.

2. The facts of the case reveal weary tale of a soldier who instead of fighting on the battlefield had to fight in the Courts. His fight against employer, for his lawful dues, started in the year 2000 and after 21 years, the battle still continues.

3. Appellant was a constable in Indo-Tibetan Police Force. He was recruited on 04.05.1970. In 1971 appellant suffered an injury to his left eye. Though, the injury did not cause any immediate damage, but the appellant suffered loss of vision in 1980. Despite treatment, he could not regain lost vision. It is not denied that the loss of vision suffered by the appellant was caused due to risk of service and the injury was sustained by him while discharging Government duty. Appellant was again medically examined on 06.12.1983 and was found to be physically disabled under category BEE (P). He was declared unfit for duties requiring binocular vision and was asked to discharge non-combatant general duty. On 27.8.1996, appellant was again examined by Medical Board and no further deterioration in medical condition of the appellant was reported. The Medical Board, however, opined that appellant was not fit for the post of Constable, even in general duty cadre. Appellant, apprehending his removal from service, applied for extension of one year in service and on completion of extended period, sought voluntary retirement w.e.f. 03.05.1998, by which date, he was going to complete 28 years of service so that, by addition of 5 years qualifying service, he could get full pension. His request was declined and instead was served with discharge notice dated 03.04.1997. Appellant submitted representation against proposed discharge and requested for fresh Medical Board, but nothing worked and he was finally discharged on 15.05.1997. Appellant was allowed invalid pension under Rules 38 of CCS (Pension Rules). He was granted service pension as also Extraordinary Disability Pension.

4. Appellant assailed his discharge order before this Court in CWP No. 100 of 2000. Learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the petition in following terms:

“5. As a sequel to the above discussion, writ petition is allowed, impugned discharge order dated 15.5.1997 (Annexure P-12) is quashed and the following directions are issued to the respondents:

1. The petitioner be treated to have continued in service upto the date when he would have completed 28 years of service, i.e. 3.5.1998 and be paid salary and all other allowances etc. from 16.5.1997 to the said date.

2. On and with effect from the day next following the date on which the petitioner would have completed 28 years of service, i.e. 4.5.1998, he be treated to have voluntarily retired under the relevant provisions of Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972 and given the benefits of Rule 48-B and pension and retiral benefits be paid to him accordingly, from such date.

3. Arrears of salary, in accordance with direction No. 1 and arrears of retiral benefits, in terms of direction No. 2, be paid to the petitioner within three months with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum.”

5. In compliance to aforesaid judgment, appellant was treated to have continued in service up-to 03.05.1998 and was retired w.e.f. 04.05.1998. Service pension was allowed in his favour. Appellant, however, was not granted disability pension, which resulted in filing of another writ petition before this Court by appellant being CWP No. 3753 of 2009. The said petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 18.03.2011 by learned Single Judge of this Court by observing as under:

“8 When the petitioner had been granted invalid pension, in addition to service pension on his discharge, on c