- (1.) Squadron Leader G.S. Cheema, since retired and at present a practising Advocate, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, for the restoration of disability pension of Rs. 450/- p.m. granted to him with effect from Ist April, 1983, by the Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad, and for the quashing of the order dated 19th September, 1988, Annexure P5, by which the disability pension of the petitioner has been reduced from 60 per cent to 30 per cent, that is, from Rs. 450/- p.m. to Rs. 225/- p.m.
(2.) The petitioner retired from the Indian Air Force in the rank of Squadron Leader from No. 3 Base Repair Depot, Chandigarh, on 31st March, 1983, in pursuance of the recommendations of the Release Medical Category A4-G5, as the petitioner's disablement got aggravated by the service conditions of the Indian Air Force. As a result thereof, the petitioner was granted disability pension to the extent of 60 per cent for the period from Ist April, 1983 to 24th March, 1985, whereafter it was to be reviewed keeping in view the gravity and extent of the ailment. On 21st March, 1986, the petitioner was again medically examined by the Re-Survey Medical Board and it was found that the disability remained the same. Later on, in March, 1988, the petitioner was required to report to the Command Hospital (W.C.), Chandigarh, for appearing before the Re-Survey Medical Board for the second time. This was held on 15th March, 1988, and physical condition of the petitioner regarding the ailment remained the same. On the basis thereof, on 19th April, 1988, recommendations were made by the Air Headquarters to the Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad, for grant of continuation of disability pension. However, on 19th September, 1988, the petitioner was informed that his disability had been found as 30 per cent disablement instead of 60 per cent as earlier notified. As a result thereof, his monthly pension had been reduced from Rs. 450/- to Rs. 225/-. This decision of the respondents has been challenged by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the petitioner mainly on the ground that the petitioner has still been undergoing treatment at the P.G.I., Chandigarh and other medical institutions and his condition has not improved, as a result whereof the disability of the petitioner remains the same that is, 60 per cent.
(3.) Attempt has been made by the respondents to justify the impugned action on the ground that the reasons for reducing the percentage of disablement of the pensioners are not communicated to them and the detailed reasons leading to the reduction of percentage of disablement stand recorded by the Medical Adviser (Pensions). Therefore, while acting upon the medical opinion, the question of complying with the principles of natural justice did not arise, inasmuch as there was hardly any necessity of affording an opportunity of personal hearing or issuing any notice to the petitioner.;