- (1.) The appellant-writ petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on 22.3.1955 and was invalidated out of service on the recommendation of the medical board in the year 1963 and was placed in medical category 'EEE' with his disability assessed at 100%. He was accordingly granted disability pension consisting of both elements i.e. disability and service. The appellant continued to draw his disability pension upto the year 1973, when his disability was re-assessed by the Re-survey Medical Board and it was reduced to below 20%. As a consequence thereof, the respondents declined the disability pension to the appellant. The appeal filed by the appellant was rejected on 20.10.1989. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed Civil Writ Petition No. 837 of 1999, which too was dismissed by a learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment dated October 7, 2002, on the plea that as the Re-Survey Medical Board had assessed the disability at less than 20%, the appellant was not entitled to the disability pension and that if at all, he was entitled to special gratuity only on that account. Hence, the present appeal.
(2.) Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, the learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that though the appellant may not be entitled to the grant of disability pension but he was nevertheless entitled to service pension as provided by rule 183 read with 186 of the Pension Regulations for the Army from the time when he was invalidated from the service. He has, in this connection, relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 12311 of 1996 (Ex. Sigmn Amarjit Singh v. Union of India and others, decided on 27.2.1997, copy appended as Annexure P-10 to the paper book. In this judgment, it has been categorically held that in case the disability was assessed at below 20%, the claimant would not have any right to get disability element of the pension but he would nevertheless be entitled to the service element of the pension for life. Mr. Sehgal informs us that a Special Leave Petition filed against the abovesaid judgment had been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We accordingly, while following the aforesaid judgment, allow the appeal and direct that the appellant would have his arrears for a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.;