The principle of delay and laches, minimum service requirement for pension, and eligibility criteria for disability pension under the Central Civil Services (Extra Ordinary Pension) Rules were central to the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

Ved Prakash Vaish, J.

The petitioner, Shri Manohar Singh has filed the present writ petition for issuing directions to the respondents to absorb him in alternative job and also for granting him disability and invalid pension along with arrears from the date of discharge.

2. The facts as set out in the petition are that the petitioner was appointed by the respondents as Sepoy (GD) on 27th February, 1987. He successfully completed the training and thereafter he was posted at Silchar (Assam).

3. It is stated that while continuing in service on 20th May, 1987 the petitioner was found suffering from pleural effusion (Rt.) with complaints of fever, cough with expectoration and chest pain right side. He was admitted at Military Hospital, Landsdowne for treatment.

4. The petitioner was transferred to Military Hospital, Roorki on 22nd May, 1987 as his case was Pneumonitis (Rt.). He was again referred to Military Hospital Meerut for the opinion of the Medical Board. The Medical Board after checking the petitioner found that he was not physically fit due to the illness as his disability was assessed to 40%. Further, the Medical Board opined that the aforesaid 40% disability is attributable to service caused due to strenuous physical exertion associated with basic training.

5. It is also stated that on 3rd May, 1988 the petitioner was discharged from service on the recommendation of Medical Boards on the ground that he is not fit for service as his disability was assessed to 40%. It is stated that at the time of discharge the petitioner was assured that he would be given alternative shelter job and he would be given disability and invalid pension as per rules.

6. It is further stated that despite lapse of considerable time the respondents neither absorb the petitioner in shelter job nor gave him disability and invalid pension. The petitioner made several representations to the respondents and prayed for providing him alternative job so that he may earn his livelihood and for granting him disability and invalid pension.

7. It is further stated that vide letter dated 21st November, 2006 the respondents informed the petitioner that he was declared as deserter and therefore he was dismissed from service on 1st May, 1988. The petitioner replied to the respondents stating that he was discharged from service with 40% disability with the assurance to absorb him in alternative job and he was never declared deserter as mentioned in the letter. It is stated that the respondents did not pay any heed to the request of the petitioner.

8. The petitioner was constrained to serve a legal notice dated 10th February, 2012 upon the respondents requiring them to give him an alternative job as well as grant him the disability and invalid pension.

9. The respondents, in response to the legal notice dated 10th February, 2012, vide letter dated 10th March, 2012 asked the petitioner to submit all the relevant documents for processing his case for grant of necessary benefits. The petitioner submitted all relevant documents before the respondents. The petitioner stated that he is protected under Section-47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities Protection of Rights and full Participation) Act, 1995 and Section-38 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.

10. Since there was no positive response from the respondents, the petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition No. 2535 of 2013 before the High of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla. The said writ petition was disposed of as not pressed with liberty to the petitioner to file the same on the same cause of action before the appropriate forum.

11. It is also stated that the petitioner, thereafter, filed a Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court, but was constrained to withdraw the same on the ground of jurisdiction with liberty to file it in the appropriate Court. Hence the present petition.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents ought to have absorbed the petit