Delhi High Court
Mohan Lal vs Union Of India & Anr. on 10 October, 2018
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7804/2016
MOHAN LAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Mohan Kumar with Ms.Rashmi
Singh & Ms.Neetu Singh, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Amrit Pal Singh, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
ORDER
% 10.10.2018
1. This is a second round of litigation that the petitioner has initiated
based on the same cause of action. Prior hereto in the year 2016, the
petitioner had raised the same grievance as raised in the present petition
about his entitlement to 20% disability pension on account of suffering
from defective eye-sight and night blindness, due to which he was
invalidated from service w.e.f. 20.07.1979, upon being declared unfit for
being retained in service on the basis of a report submitted by the Medical
Board on 06.04.1979.
2. The first writ petition filed by the petitioner registered as
W.P.(C)No.994/2016, was disposed of vide order dated 12.02.2016 with
directions to the respondents to consider his representation dated
06.01.2015, in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of
Union of India v. Tarsen Singh [(2008) 8 SCC 648] and Dharamvir
Singh v. Union of India & Ors. [(2013) 7 SCC 316]. Further, liberty was
granted to the petitioner to seek legal recourse in case he was aggrieved by
the decision that may be taken by the respondents.
3. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the respondents passed an order
dated 09.03.2016 stating inter alia that the disability on account of which
the petitioner had been invalidated, had been categorised under Category
„A‟ i.e. "disability due to natural causes not attributable to Government
service of Rule 9 (2) of Schedule II of the CCS (Extraordinary Pension),
Rules", and therefore, he was not entitled to grant of disability pension.
The respondents had therefore sanctioned invalidation pension in favour of
the petitioner @ Rs.80/- and RIP @ Rs.40/- per month, in accordance with
the existing rules.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed the present
petition stating inter alia that the decision of the respondents of declining
to grant him disability pension on being invalidated from service, is in
contravention of the settled law; that the disability in question was
contracted by the petitioner during the course of his service and while
passing the impugned order, the respondents have not considered the
decisions cited by this Court in the order dated 12.02.2016 passed in
W.P.(C)No.994/2016.
5. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents had
stated that the records pertaining to the petitioner related to the year 1978-
79 and therefore, there was a probability that the same may not be
available. Directions were issued to the respondents to file an affidavit, if
the records were not available.
6. Today, learned counsel for the respondents states that some records
relating to the petitioner are available in the Department and the same
includes the report of the petitioner‟s Medical Examination issued by a
Three Member Medical Board held at Jammu, which records he was
suffering from "impaired visual acuity". The said certificate was
forwarded by the Medical Officer In-charge GC, CRPF Hospital, Jammu
under cover of letter dated 09.04.1979, to the Commandant, Group Centre,
CRPF, Jammu, for further necessary action.
7. On the basis of the report of the Medical Board, an office order dated
01.05.1979, invalidated the petitioner from CRPF w.e.f. 20.07.1979, was
passed. It is undisputed before us, that till December 2014, the petitioner
did not raise any grievance for claiming disability pension. He did so for
the first time on 06.01.2015, which is after a passage of 36 years reckoned
from the date when an actionable cause of action, if any, had accrued in his
favour.
8. We find that during the hearing in the earlier writ petition filed by the
petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that if the
respondents are directed to consider his representation, he would be ready
and willing to confine his relief to a period of 3 years prior to 06.01.2015.
Even today, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the said
submission. He however states that the respondents have failed to decide
the petitioner‟s representation in the light of the decisions of the Supreme
Court in the cases of Tarsem Singh (supra) and Dharamvir Singh (supra)
and submits that if they had carefully examined the said decisions, then the
impugned order dated 09.03.2016 would not have held that the disability in
respect of the petitioner having been categorised under Category A, had to
be treated as not being attributable to service. He argues that the
respondents have completely overlooked the fact that Medical Board had
not given any reasons in support of its opinion for invalidating the
petitioner as there was no diagnosis as to whether the "impaired visual
acuity" from which the petitioner was found to be suffering from, was a
condition attributable to his service. It is thus contended that the
respondents have failed to appreciate that the decision in the case of
Dharamvir Singh (supra) would apply on all fours, to the facts of the
present case.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also draws the attention of this
Court to the report dated 02.02.1979, issued by the Professor and Head of
the Department of Ophthalmology, Silchar Medical College and Hospital,
which certified that the petitioner was suffering from defective eyesight
and night blindness for about 2 years and that he had been investigated and
treated for the said eye ailment in the Eye-Department of the Hospital as an
outdoor patient since 08.12.1978. The report further states that because of
his night blindness and poor eyesight, which was deteriorating gradually,
he was unfit for any work.
10. We may note that the report dated 02.02.1979, had been prepared at a
time when the petitioner was still in service and the very fact that the said
report mentions that he was suffering from the eye ailment for two years
shows that the disability on account of which the petitioner had been
invalidated, had arisen during the course of his service.
11. In our view reliance placed by learned counsel for the respondents on
Schedule - IA of the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules,
1939, which lays down a list and classification of diseases which can be
contracted during the service as also a list of those diseases that are not
normally affected by service, including diseases relating to eyes, would not
be of any assistance to the respondents in light of the admitted position that
the Medical Board had neither specified the nature of the eye ailment from
which the petitioner was suffering at the time of his invalidation nor did the
Board gave any opinion regarding its attributability to or aggravation on
account of service conditions.
12. In view of the admitted position that the eye ailment on account of
which the petitioner had been invalidated had arisen during the course of
his service and in the absence of any reasons given by the Medical Board
regarding the attributability or aggravation of the petitioner‟s disability,
following the ratio of the decision in the case of Dharamvir Singh (supra),
we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner‟s disability has to be
treated as a result of his service conditions.
13. For the reasons stated above and in the given facts and circumstances
of the present case, we deem it appropriate to quash and set aside the
impugned order dated 09.03.2016 issued by the respondents. The present
petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay the petitioner the
disability pension in accordance with law for a period of three years prior
to 06.01.2015, the date when the petitioner had first submitted a
representation to the respondents seeking disability pension. Needful shall
be done within eight weeks from today.
14. The petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. The original
medical records are returned to the counsel for the respondents.
(HIMA KOHLI)
JUDGE
(REKHA PALLI)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 10, 2018
sr
