Delhi High Court
Jai Prakash Dhaka vs Uoi & Ors. on 7 March, 2011
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 7th March, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 2888/2010
JAI PRAKASH DHAKA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Vasudha V. Indukar,
Advocate
versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Sonia Sharma, CGSC with
Asstt. Commandant Abdus
Salam.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
ORDER
% 07.03.2011
1. Notwithstanding all and sundry pleading in the writ
petition and reliefs prayed for, learned counsel for the
petitioner restricted submissions to the issue of petitioner
being discharged from service on account of physical infirmity
and petitioner's entitlement to disability pension.
2. Employed as a driver with C.I.S.F., on 02.12.1995
petitioner was driving a vehicle along with an escort party
bringing cash from Okha to Doyang in Nagaland. At 13:50 hrs.
militants attacked the party. Encounter ensued for 15-20
minutes. Heavy exchange of fire took place. Petitioner
received grievous injuries. A bullet hit his lower jaw. A portion
of mandible as also three teeth were lost. Left shoulder got
bullet damaged, which required skin grafting. Medial aspect of
left arm was rendered virtually immobile. Splinter pieces were
embedded all over the body. By 19.05.1996, it was apparent
that the petitioner would not show much recovery and would
be permanently physically handicapped for the rest of his life.
A certificate dated 19.05.1996 issued by the Senior Medical
Officer of NEEPCO Hospital, Doyang records that there is
considerable degree of restriction of movement of neck and
left hand of the petitioner due to injuries and post-operative
complications. He certified that the petitioner was no longer fit
to drive a vehicle and could at best be assigned light duties.
3. One would have expected the department to act with
reason and logic. One would have expected the department to
have invalidated the petitioner from service and since
disability occasioning invalidation was directly attributable to
Government service, disability pension ought to have been
released in favour of the petitioner.
4. That department did not do so. It claimed that when
examined at Dr.Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, petitioner was
certified as unfit for driving on account of low vision. This
opinion was taken on 07.11.2001 resulting in an order dated
10.12.2001 being passed. As per the order, petitioner was
invalidated in service due to low eye vision. Since the low eye
vision was held not attributable to service, no disability
pension was sanctioned.
5. We note that the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(C) No.
2020/2003, which was as confusing, probably much more,
than the instant writ petition. The same was disposed vide the
order dated 21.10.2009 directing the petitioner to file a
properly drafted writ petition limiting the issue to petitioner's
entitlement to be paid disability pension.
6. This has resulted in the instant petition being filed. We
regret to note that learned counsel has once again resorted to
cut, copy and paste.
7. Restricting claim to disbursement of disability pension,
suffice would it be to state that the petitioner, who had
received grievous injuries in the year 1995, was declared
medically unfit on 19.05.1996 and the department was bound
to consider his case as per the certificate dated 19.05.1996
and not wait for 5 years. It is possible that petitioner's eye
sight deteriorated over the years. That apart, learned counsel
for the respondent concedes that invalidation on account of
medical disability has to be with reference to an opinion taken
by a Medical Board and not a routine medical examination
conducted by one doctor. Learned counsel for the
respondents concedes that in the instant case no Medical
Board was constituted when petitioner was found unfit due to
low eye sight.
8. No useful purpose would be served in directing today
that a review Medical Board should be held. We rely upon the
certificate dated 19.5.2006 (Annexure-B), as per which the
petitioner suffered serious physical disability on account of
militants attacking the convoy, a jeep whereof was being
driven by the petitioner when cash was being transported.
9. We dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents
to treat the petitioner as medically unfit to serve w.e.f.
05.12.2001. We hold that the medical invalidity of the
petitioner would be the one noted in the medical certificate
dated 19.05.2006. We further direct that petitioner be
forthwith paid disability pension for the reason the disability is
held to be directly attributable to Government service.
10. Arrears would be computed and paid to the petitioner
within 4 months from today and future disability pension would
be paid each month.
11. Any other due payable to the petitioner, as a result of
petitioner's discharge being on account of medical disability
attributable to Government service, would also be released in
favour of the petitioner within three months from today.
12. No costs.
13. Dasti.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J
SURESH KAIT, J
MARCH 07, 2011
RS
