The central legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of disability pension under the applicable rules, emphasizing the principles of continuing cause of action and considering the age of the respondent.

JUDGMENT

Vipin Sanghi, CJ. - The present special appeal is directed against the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 123 of 2017 dated 06.01.2021. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition preferred by the respondent - writ-petitioner seeking a grant of disability pension to him, since the date of his discharge from his service from the Assam Rifles.

2. The respondent - writ-petitioner was inducted as a Rifleman in Assam Rifles on 23.08.1957. After he had rendered 06 years, 09 months and 22 days service with Assam Rifles, he was discharged on the ground of invalidity on 15.05.1964. At this stage itself, we may notice that in the counter affidavit filed by the appellant in the writ proceedings, they have produced the Brief-Sheet of Destroyed Service Records by a Board as per order No.l.36031/8/89/Records (Coord)/85 Dated 15 June 1989 wherein, the cause of discharge is recorded as 'invalid out'.

3. The petitioner also filed along with the writ petition the document with regard to his discharge, wherein the reason for discharge is recorded as 'on medical ground'.

4. The respondent - writ-petitioner sought disability pension, which was rejected on 25.09.1965, on the ground that he did not have qualifying service of 10 years. The claim for invalid pension was accordingly rejected.

5. Pertinently, this communication did not state that the petitioner did not suffer from disability while in service, which was caused by, or aggravated due to the service. The only ground of rejection as aforesaid was that he did not have ten years of qualifying service.

6. The grant of disability pension, it appears is governed by the CCS (Extraordinary Pension), Rules, 1939. Perusal of these Rules shows that there is no minimum qualifying service prescribed under the said Rules to become eligible to grant of disability pension. Consequently, it appears, that the rejection of the respondent's claim for disability pension on the ground that he did not have ten years qualifying service was erroneous. Consequently, the respondent was denied disability pension due to this rejection, month after month, and till the time that he preferred the writ petition. Pertinently, after the rejection of his claim for disability pension on 25.09.1965, the first time that the writ-petitioner made his representation was on 29.02.2016. Only thereafter, he preferred the writ petition. In the writ petition, the appellant filed its counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the appellant, inter-alia, stated as follows:-

'Number 63282 Ex riflemen Jawahar Singh Bist was enrolled in to the Assam Rifles on 23 Aug 1957 and posted to 6 Assam Rifles. He was invalided out from service on medical grounds with effect from 15 May 1964 after having rendered a total of 06 years, 08 months and 23 days service. His sheet roll and other service document have already been destroyed by the department after having retained them till permissible time limit for retention as prescribed in GFR-289 and an extract brief sheet has been drawn by a board of officers on records for future reference wherein his name has been endorsed as Jawahar Singh Bist.

That as per the extract brief sheet available on records, the petitioner was sanctioned invalid gratuity of Rs.492.75 (Rupees four hundred ninety two and seventy five paise only). He was not granted invalid pension as he had not completed mandatory 10 years service as envisaged under article 474 of Civil Service Regulations, subsequently incorporated as rule 49 (2) (b) of Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972. Furthermore, Rule 3(a) and Rule 9(3) of Central Civil Service (Extra Ordinary Pension) Rules provide that the disability of the person should be attributable to or aggravated due to service conditions with 60% or above disablement for grant of disability pension. The petitioner was not meeting the above criteria, therefore, he was not entitled to any kind of pension from Assam Rifles.'

(emphasis supplied)