- (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.3.1998 (P-2) passed by the Officer Incharge Records - respondent No. 2, rejecting his claim for grant of disability pension on account of amputation of leg above knee suffered by him during his service in the army.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was enrolled as a Sepoy on 24.6.1994. He has come on leave to his home town. The Company in which he was serving, namely, Sikh Regiment had desired him to bring certain items for use by the Unit Personnel. Accordingly, he was to bring religious items like Karra (Steel Bangle), Kanga (Comb) etc. it is asserted that on 16.6.1996, when he was proceeding on his scooter after collecting those items, he met with an accident with a truck. On gaining consciousness, he found himself in Beas Hospital and thereafter he was shifted to Military Hospital, Jalandhar. He was then shifted to Pune where his one leg above knee has to be amputated. He remained hospitalised at Pune for about three months and then reported to his Unit at Ramgarh during November, 1996. He was boarded out of service on 27.3.1997. On account of his invalidation his case was taken up by respondent No. 2 as is evident from the letter dated 22.9.1997 (P-1) for grant of disability pension. However, the claim was declined by observing as under: 2. It is to inform you that your disability pension has been rejected by CCDA (P) Allahabad vide their letter No. g-3/65/419/6-97 dated 4 March 98 on the ground that your disability "AMPUTATION ABOVE KNEE" on account of which you have been invalided out of service is: a) Neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. b) Constitutional in nature and not related to service.
(3.) A copy of the sheet containing decision of the Medical Division (Pensions) attached to CCDA (P) Allahabad, is enclosed which is self explanatory. 3. The averments as stated in the writ petition have been controverted in the written statement filed. It has been stated that the petitioner, in fact, had met with an accident with a bullock cart while he was driving his scooter and not with a truck as alleged. The version of the petitioner to bring certain items from Mehta has also been controverted as it is not borne out from record. It has further been asserted that the injury suffered by the petitioner is neither attributable or aggravated by military service and, therefore, no pension is admissible to the petitioner. A further stand has been taken that the appeal filed by the petitioner was under consideration.;