BALDEV SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
LAWS(P&H)-2000-4-68
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on April 12,2000

BALDEV SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R.L. Anand, J. - (1.) PETITIONER Baldev Singh has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Though he made two -fold prayer, but during the course of submission learned counsel for the petitioner is only pressing for service element on behalf of his client.
(2.) SOME facts can be noticed in the following manner : The petitioner was born on 7.3.1951. He was enrolled in the Army on 24.6.1968 and at the time of his enrolment he was medically examined and was placed in category "A". According to the petitioner, he was sent for training and was allocated 20 Mechanised Regt. Infantry. Unfortunately, the petitioner suffered skin disease Seborhbeic Dermatitis (in vernacular known as "Khurk"). On account of this disease he was invalidated from the Army on medical ground and was placed in lower medical category "E" and his disability was assessed at 20% initially. The petitioner was boarded out from the service on 5.3.1970. It was observed by the authorities that this was aggravated on account of Army service. The petitioner was given the benefit of disability pension and he had Been getting this benefit w.e.f. 5.3.1970 upto 29.1.1972, which was again extended upto 7.5.1976. The case of the respondent is that since the disability of the petitioner has been reduced less than 20%, therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of disability pension. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of this case.
(3.) IN para No. 7 of the writ petition the petitioner has specifically alleged that apart from the benefit of disability pension he is also entitled to the benefit of service element as per Regulation 186(1) of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 and it will be proper on my part of make mention of the specific allegations of the petitioner, which read as under : "That it is pertinent to mention that the respondents were bound to continue with the service element as provided in the Regulations 186(1) of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961.";


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