PARKASH CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)
LAWS(HPH)-1997-2-8
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on February 25,1997

PARKASH CHAND Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

EX. SEPOY CHATTER SINGH V. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
RAN SINGH JAGGI V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

M.SRINIVASAN,C.J. - (1.)THERE is no merit whatever in this writ petition. This petition can be dismissed on two grounds. The first ground is that the Petitioner has chosen to approach this Court after a lapse of 27 years. Admittedly, the disability pension, which was being paid to the Petitioner was stopped on 2 -7 -1969. The Petitioner appeared before the Re -survey Medical Board in 1979 and again in 1989. On both the occasions, it was found that the disability was less than 20% and he was not entitled to disability pension. He preferred an appeal before the Ist Respondent, which was dismissed in 1991. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a mercy petition before the President of India, which was also rejected. There is no explanation with regard to delay and laches on the part of the Petitioner. Hence, the writ petition has to fail on this ground.
(2.)SECONDLY , as regards the merit also, there is nothing on the record to show that the Petitioner is entitled to get the disability pension even though the disability is less than 20%
Reliance is placed upon a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ex. Sepoy Chatter Singh v. Union of India and Anr. 1994 (1) SLR 465. It is seen from the facts of the case that the Petitioner had challenged successfully the report given by the Medical Board in a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority and even after that disability pension was not given. There was also no question of any delay on the part of the Petitioner in that case. There can be no comparison with said decision on the facts of this case.

(3.)OUR attention is drawn to a judgment of this Court in Ran Singh Jaggi v. Union of India and Ors. 1995 (2) SLJ 991. I Disability pension was stopped in that case in 1988 and the writ petition was filed in 1993. There was no delay or laches on the part of the Petitioner in that case. The facts are entirely different. It is to be noted that the Bench relied upon a judgment in Ex Sepoy Chatter Singh's case 1094 (1) SLR 465, and extracted a relevant passage. The facts of the case are entirely different and cannot be compared with the present one.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.