Subash Chand Baliyan vs Uoi & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 4962 Del

$~1
*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                             Date of Decision: August 23, 2012

+                 W.P.(C) 3220/1998

      SUBASH CHAND BALIYAN                     ..... Petitioner
               Represented by: Mr.S.K.Tyagi, Advocate.

                  versus

      UOI & ORS                                    .....Respondents
                  Represented by: None.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

CM No.4914/2012

1. Delay occasioned in filing the application seeking restoration of the writ petition is condoned.

2. Application stands disposed of. CM No.4913/2012

1. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed.

2. Writ petition restored and is set down for hearing today.

WP(C) No.3220/1998

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. It is not in dispute that during a morning walk on April 19, 1995, petitioner had a road accident, which obviously is not attributable to the service, and thus the injury suffered by the petitioner cannot be held attributable to service.

3. Petitioner desires disability pension to be paid to him

or in the alternative compensation to be paid for the injury in question and for which petitioner places reliance upon Pension Regulation No.153 of the Pension Regulations for Air Force: 1961.

4. But, counsel for the petitioner concedes that petitioner was discharged from service, not on medical grounds, but on account of his being a habitual offender, and the power to so discharge being vested in the Competent Authority under Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) of the Air Force Rules 1969. In spite thereof it is claimed that the petitioner would be entitled to disability pension.

5. Highlighting that the pension regulation in question contemplates a discharge from service on account of disability which is attributable to or aggravated due to service, we dismiss the writ petition on account of the fact that the petitioner was not discharged from service on account of any disability, but on account of being a habitual offender.

6. No costs.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

AUGUST 23, 2012 dk