R.L. Anand, J. - (1.) THE cry of the petitioner -Baldev Singh is that his disability is being reduced by CCDA(P) without opinion of the Re -Survey Medical Board. This contention of the petitioner stands fortified in the present case. Some facts can be described in the following manner : -
(2.) BALDEV Singh -petitioner has given challenge to Annexure P -5 dated 25.9.1980 and Annexure P -6 dated 7.11.1996 vide which the appeals of the petitioner for disability pension have been rejected and he has been deprived of the benefit of disability pension. The petitioner's date of birth is 27.7.1950. He was enrolled in the Army on 27.7.1970. The petitioner suffered the disease which was diagnosed as POLIOMYELITIES EFFECTS OF. Injury was declared as attributable to the military service as the percentage of the disability was assessed at more than 20% and the petitioner was placed in category "EEE" and the benefit of his disability was given to the petitioner from 11.6.1971 and upto 10.11.1974. Subsequently, the petitioner appeared before the Re -Survey Medical Board and his disability was assessed at 20% but the CCDA(P) reduced the said disability. As a result of that, disability pension of the petitioner discontinued with effect from 11.11.1974 and it was reduced for a period of 2 years. On the expiry of 2 years, the petitioner again appeared before the Re -survey Medical Board on 8.1.1976 and his disability was again assessed at 20% final. On account of this declaration, the petitioner became eligible for the benefit of disability pension but when the papers were sent to CCDA(P), it again rejected the claim of the petitioner by reducing the extent of disability to less than 20%. The petitioner's appeal was rejected. Hence this petition.
(3.) NOTICE of writ petition was given to the respondents. The stand of the respondent is very naked and very clear. According to them, the disability of the petitioner has been reduced to less than 20%, therefore, he is not entitled to the benefits of disability pension. It is further pleaded by the respondents in para 6 of their reply that "as per rule 27(c) of Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards 1982, Medical Board shall give findings and recommendations on entitle -ment and assessment in case of all disabilities. They are, however, not statutory bodies and their recommendation can be reviewed and revised by the medical authorities viz. DG AFMS attached as medical advisor (Pensions) in the office of CCDA(P) Allahabad, who is a specialist and ensures consistency in assessment of the disabilities. In the instant case also reassessment of disability element claim in respect of petitioner forwarded vide respondent No. 3 letter No. 1450233 l/RA -9/Pen dated 15.6.1994 (not July 15, 1995, as mentioned by the petitioner in this para) was considered by CCDA(P) Allahabad on the basis of clinical notes of the board in consultation with Medical Advisor (Pension) and after review, re -assessed his disability on June 10, 1994, at less than 20% (11 to 14%) permanently for life and discontinued his disability element under rules.;