Delhi High Court
Shiv Narayan vs Uoi & Ors. on 9 February, 2010
Author: Gita Mittal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 838/2010
Date of decision: 9th February, 2010
SHIIV NARAYAN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. M.K. Gaur, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
1 Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?
No
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3 Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?No
GITA MITTAL, J(Oral)
1. The petitioner was found to be suffering from planter facistis (L) (OL) during
the course of his employment with the General Road Engineering Force in the
year 1982 and was placed in Medical Category III temporary for six months. It is
contended that on 22nd November, 1983, the medical board had upgraded the
petitioner's medical category to GREF (II) (Permanent) for two years. On a
subsequent review medical board conducted on 21st May, 1988, the petitioner was
placed in medical category BEE permanent and the
degree of his disablement was assessed at 20%. The petitioner claims that on
account of his sickness, he sought voluntary retirement and was discharged by
the respondents on 31st July, 1991. A grievance is made that despite entitlement,
the extraordinary pension to which he was entitled under the CCS(EOP) Rules,
1972 has not been released to him.
2. The petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(C) No. 2151/2008 complaining against
the inaction by the respondents. This writ petition was disposed of by an order
passed on 21st August, 2008 by this court directing the respondents to examine
the petitioner's case including the medical records to verify whether the disability
of the petitioner is attributable to or aggravated by military service and in case it
is so found, then the petitioner would be entitled to disability pension restricted to
a period of three years prior to filing of the writ petition.
3. Despite the clear mandate of the order passed by this court, the
respondents have passed a speaking order dated 6th January, 2009 justifying their
action in denying the extraordinary pension to the petitioner. We have examined
the order which has been passed. We find that the respondents have failed to
take a view on the first issue which they were required to consider which was that
the respondents were first required to examine the case of the petitioner
alongwith the concerned medical records and to arrive at a conclusion as to
whether
the disability of the petitioner was attributable to or aggravated by the military
service or not. This has not been done.
The second aspect of the matter would arise for consideration only
thereafter.
In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with the following
directions :-
(i) In view of the time which has passed, the petitioner shall place before the
respondents within a period of two weeks from today all such records as are
available with him relating to his medical examination and treatment, if any.
(ii) The respondents shall take a relook at all medical records of the petitioner
available with them with regard to examination of the issue and verification as to
whether the disability of the petitioner is either attributable to or aggravated by
military service.
The respondents shall take a considered view and pass a speaking order
within a period of eight weeks from today.
(iii) So far as the conclusion of the respondents that the petitioner is not
entitled to the disability pension for the reason that he took voluntary discharge is
concerned, the same is left open for challenge at a later stage.
It is made clear that nothing herein contained is an expression of opinion on
the merits of the case.
This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Dasti to parties.
GITA MITTAL,J
VIPIN SANGHI, J
FEBRUARY 09, 2010
kr
