SATISH Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner is praying for setting aside his order of termination of service and for directing the respondents to calculate his service as continuous service and to award all consequential benefits to him by holding that termination of the petitioner amounts to his release on medical ground. The petitioner is also praying for directing the respondents to give him disability pension.

(2.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioner, Shri L.V. Sangit, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner joined army as a Clerk after undergoing due selection process; for a period of 16 years by executing a bond. According to the learned counsel, in the year 1989, the petitioner suffered head as well as chest pain at Jalandhar and he was admitted at the hospital for about 5 to 6 months. On 23.1.1990, the petitioner was discharged from his duty and he was sent back to home by the Army Officer. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that no discharge certificate was issued to the petitioner. He was not served with any show cause notice nor any reason was given for his discharge or termination. No inquiry was held prior to terminating the petitioner. Kit clearance certificate was issued to the petitioner and he was informed by the respondents that the discharge certificate will be issued on receipt of sheet roll from CCDA (P), Allahabad vide letter dated 17.3.1992. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, ultimately the petitioner was served with a letter dated 11.10.1991 by the Record Keeper of the Army Ordnance Corps Record by informing that claim of the petitioner for disability pension has been rejected as the disability is not attributable to the military service, or that it is not established that the disability is attributed to and aggravated due to service. It is further informed that as the disability assessed is less than 20%, claim of the petitioner for disability pension is rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal but he was informed that the appeal has not been finalized. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was not suffering from any medical problem such as chest pain or headache before joining the service and he joined the service after medical examination. This fact according to the learned counsel for the petitioner shows that the petitioner had not suffered any disability or ailment prior to joining of the service and, therefore, the disability suffered by him in the year 1989 is definitely attributable to the army service. The learned counsel further submitted that as per Section 23 of the Army Act, it is necessary to furnish discharge certificate on removal from service and as the same is not issued, the petitioner needs to be held as continued in service and, therefore, entitled for all benefits including the pension. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Rule 15A is not followed by the respondents and no provision is made by them for civil rehabilitation of the petitioner. Hence, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs claimed.