- (1.) Having served the country for almost about 23 years as a member of the defence services (Indian Air Force), lastly as Wing Commander and having been retired in low medical category as A4G2 with 30% disability as early as on 31.12.1986, the petitioner has now come to this Court for issuance of a direction to the respondents to grant him disability pension w.e.f. 1.1.1987. He was prayed that Annexures P-9 and P- 10 be quashed and the respondents be directed to give him disability pension as per the opinion of the Medical Board. He has also prayed for grant of interest at the rate of 18% P.A. on the amount of arrears of pension.
(2.) In order to decided the controversy involved in the petition, it is necessary to set out a few facts.
(3.) The petitioner was examined by the release Medical Board which certified that the petitioner suffered from 30% disability that the petitioner suffered from 30% disability aggravated by the military services. The petitioner made a claim for the grant of disability pension, but it was rejected by the Government of India vide communication dated 15.6.1987 (Annexure P-1). His appeal was also dismissed by the Government of India vide communication dated 3.6.1988 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner appealed to the President of India and on reconsideration of the matter, the Government of India wrote to the Chief of the Air Staff, New Delhi, on September 20, 1988 (Annexure P-3) with a copy to the petitioner that the President of India has been pleased to decide that the disability on account of which the petitioner was relieved from service, was aggravated by military services. This decision of the President of India, resulted in supersession of Annexure P-l and P-2. Notwithstanding the decision of thePresident of India regarding the nature of disability suffered by the petitioner, the Government of India, further took a decision that disability of the petitioner should be viewed at less than 20% for the period from 1.1.1987 to 22.7.1988. The petitioner was once again examined by the Re-survey Medical Board as is apparent from Annexure P-4, dated 8.1.1992. The Re-survey Medical Board, opined that the petitioner's disability was to the tune of 20% for the period from 1.1.1987 to 23.7.1988. Annexure P-4 further shows that the opinion of the Medical Board was overruled by the Pension Sanctioning Authority, which opined that the disability of the petitioner was 15% to 19%. The petitioner was once again referred to the Re-survey Medical Board by the Air Headquarters, New Delhi, vide letter dated 17.1.1992. Re-survey Medical Board examination of the petitioner was held on 13.4.1992 and on the recommendation of the Re-survey Medical Board, the Chief of the Air Staff, New Delhi wrote letter Annexure P-8, dated 27.7.1992 to the Dy. C.D.A. (AF), New Delhi, that in the opinion of the Re-survey Medical Board, the petitioner suffered from 20% disability. The Chief of the Air Staff, requested that the petitioner be granted disability pension at the earliest. Once again, the pension authorities thought that the disability of the petitioner was less than 20% and, therefore, vide communication date 3.12.1992, Annexure P-9, the claim of the petitioner for the grant of disability pension was rejected. In the meanwhile, the petitioner made representations to the Government of India or more than one occasions. Those representations did not bring, the desired result and ultimately the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. His plea is that once the Medical Board has after thorough examination-opined that he suffered from 20% disability, it was not open to the pension sanctioning authority or any other authority to alter the percentage of disability and thereby deny the disability pension to him.;