The central legal point established in the judgment is the attribution of disability to government service as a crucial factor in determining entitlement to disability pension.

P. Sathasivam, J.

The above Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 25.02.2002, passed in W.P. No.11762 of 1999, in and by which, the learned Judge dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the writ petitioner as not maintainable.

2. For convenience, we shall refer the parties as arrayed before the learned single Judge.

3. According to the petitioner, he is an ex-serviceman. He joined the Indian Army and worked as Subedar. After 19 ½ years of service, he retired from Army Service in the year 1976. Thereafter, he joined the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) on 08.07.1978 as Assistant Sub-Inspector and, after putting in 7 years of service, he was promoted as Sub-Inspector. In 1990, he was boarded out of service on account of his disablement and the disability was certified as 80%. Accordingly, he was relieved from duty on 16.01.1990. Eleven months after his retirement, the Accounts Officer, Regional Pay and Accounts Office, released invalid pension though he was eligible for disability pension as per relevant Rules. The respondents did not release the disability pension; therefore, he made a representation on 012. 1990. The Deputy Commandant, CISF, by letter dated 14.07.1992, sent to the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Malda, a copy of which had been marked to the petitioner, called for the opinion of the Medical Board. Thereafter, by letter dated 111. 1993, the Commandant, CISF Unit, Farakka, advised the petitioner to report to the District Hospital, Malda, for a detailed Medical check up. By letter dated 212. 1993, the petitioner requested the 2nd respondent/Commandant to permit him to have medical check up at a place nearer to his town. The Director General/R4, by letter dated 16.09.1994, instructed the D.I.G, CISF, to make arrangements by deputing staff to contact the medical authority at petitioners native place for conducting a second medical examination and accordingly, the same was conducted on 210. 1994. The Board assessed the disability as 80%. The Commandant enclosed the original Medical Board Proceedings dated 210. 1994 along with his letter dated 211. 1994 addressed by him to the Accounts Officer. By letter dated 212. 1994, the Commandant recommended for disability pension and requested the Accounts Officer for early action. However, the petitioners case was rejected by the Accounts Officer, which necessitated him to file W.P. No.2122 of 1996 for directing the respondents to grant disability pension from 16.01.1990. By Order dated 10.07.1997, the said Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pass orders within three months. Thereafter, the petitioner received a letter dated 111. 1997 from the Commandant, CISF Unit, FSTPP, Farakka, stating that the disability pension is not admissible to him. Questioning the said Order, he filed W.P. No.11762 of 1999.

4. On behalf of the respondents, the Commandant, CISF Unit, Farakka, West Bengal ¬2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit disputing various averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. It is mainly stated that, as per the Government of India, Finance Office Memorandum No.F.19(2) CV (A) 104, dated 03.06.1965, appeal against the first Medical Boards report must be made within one month from the date on which the findings of the Board were made known to the Government Servant. The petitioner had made his objection against invalid pension after lapse of almost one year from the date of report of the first Medical Board. Further, the 2nd Medical Board did not certify to the effect that it had been given full knowledge of the fact that the person concerned had already been examined by a Medical Board who had given their opinion as to the disease in respect of which the Government Servant was incapacitated. It is further stated that the 2nd Medical Board at the native place of the petitioner, after almost five years, suo motu cannot state that the petitioner was affected