ORDER

This petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in P.III/40/1995-GC-Pen (GC) dated 03.08.2018 and quash the same and direct the respondents to revise the pension according to the 6th pay commission from 01.01.2006 and 7th pay commission from 01.01.2006 to pay disability pension and also to pay Risk Fund for 100%

disability with effect from 20.02.1995.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he has served more than 14

years of service in police force on various places. While performing physical training on 65 BN, CRPF at Arunachal Pradesh on 21.01.1983 he slipped and fell down and had a sever jerk in Lumbosacral region followed by backache and restricted movement at right hip joint numbness in right lower limb. Thereafter, he was suffering from failed back syndrome and was therefore, unfit to continue in service from 19.02.1995. Consequently, he was discharged from service with effect from 19.02.1995 with very meager medical benefits. Subsequently, the Regional Medical Board, Tamil Nadu examined the petitioner and reported that the petitioner was permanently incapacitated and assessed the disability at 100%. Thereafter, the petitioner was invalidated out from service w.e.f 19.02.1995 by giving one month notice and also sanctioned admissible normal invalidation pension at Rs.375/- p.m w.e.f 20.02.1995. Not satisfied with the same, the petitioner gave a representation on 28.08.1996 and he was directed to appear before the Review Medical Board at Hyderabad vide Directorate, CRPF New Delhi letter dated 18.02.1997. The Review Medical Board examined the petitioner on 26.04.1997 and assessed the disability of the petitioner at 30%.

Aggrieved over the same the petitioner has come up with this petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has served in CRPF for nearly 15 years all over India in Terror areas. While so due to the physical inability, the petitioner was discharged from services. However, as per medical report the petitioner is eligible for disability pension. When this being the case the respondent ought to have considered the opinion given by the Regional Medical Board, Tamil Nadu that the petitioner was permanently incapaciated and granted 100% disability rather they have considered the medical opinion rendered by the Surgeon in Orthopedics who considered the disability of the petitioner as 30%.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that on the basis of GOI Om No. 33.05.2009- P & PW(F) dated 10.12.2010 the petitioner is claiming higher disability pension is not correct. In the said Om it is clearly mentioned that the said orders will be effective only from 01.01.2006. Furthermore, application dated 04.01.2012 addressed to DIGP ( well) Directorate, CRPF, New Delhi submitted by the petitioner for sanction of disability pension was thoroughly examined by the Directorate, CRPF, New Delhi intimated vide Directorate, CRPF New Delhi Signal No.W.V-152/2011-CWO-2 dated 02.04 2002 that “ his case does not come in the ambit on 2006 Disability Scheme”.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that on the basis of GOI Om No. 33.05.2009- P & PW(F) dated 10.12.2010 the petitioner is claiming higher disability pension is not correct. In the said Om it is clearly mentioned that the said orders will be effective only from 01.01.2006. Furthermore, application dated 04.01.2012 addressed to DIGP (well) Directorate, CRPF, New Delhi submitted by the petitioner for sanction of disability pension was thoroughly examined by the Directorate, CRPF, New Delhi intimated vide Directorate, CRPF New Delhi Signal No.W.V-152/2011-CWO-2 dated 02.04 2002 that “ his case does not come in the ambit on 2006 Disability Scheme”

6. The learned counsel for the respondent has filed a counter stating that inspite of repeated communication the petitioner has submitted applications again and ag