- (1.)THE respondent herein was enrolled in the army in 1985. In 1995, he was placed in low medical category CEE(T) on account of low back -ache. In 1997, he was placed in medical category BEE(P). Right through 1999 to 2001, he continued in the same low medical category BEE(P). Eventually, he was discharged from army in 2002.
(2.)ON his discharge from army service, the respondent was awarded disability pension. While computing his pension, the respondent's disability was assessed at 20 per cent. Consequent upon the implementation of the recommendations made by the 5th Central Pay Commission, the Government of India issued a Circular dated 31.1.2001. The above Circular, inter alia, provided for grant of liberalized disability pension for armed personnel invalidated (or dying in harness) on or after 1.1.1996.
The High Court, while adjudicating upon the claim of the respondent based on the Circular dated 31.1.2001, relied on paragraph 7.2. thereof, which inter alia provided, that in cases where the percentage of disability assessed by the invaliding Medical Board was less than 50 per cent, the concerned armed forces personnel, would be entitled for computation of disability element, by treating his disability at 50 per cent. Indisputably, the disability element of the respondent was assessed at 20 per cent. Accordingly, the High Court directed the re -determination of the disability element of his emoluments payable to the respondent under paragraph 7.2 of the Circular dated 31.1.2001 by reckoning his disability as 50 per cent.

(3.)DURING the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended, that disability element of the respondent was liable to be determined under paragraph 8.2 of the Circular dated 31.1.2001, and not under paragraph 7.2 thereof, as directed by the High Court. It is not possible for us to permit the learned counsel for the appellants to raise the instant contention, for the simple reason, that there is no basis laid for the same, even in the grounds of the special leave petition. In this behalf, it would be pertinent to record, that there is no averment in the pleadings filed on behalf of the appellants, that the respondent's discharge from army service was consequent upon his having attained the age of superannuation.