Mohinder Pal, J. - (1.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner was enrolled as Constable in the Border Security Force (hereinafter referred to as 'the Force') on February 20, 1989. At the time of appointment of the petitioner, he was medically examined and found fit. He served the Force for more than seventeen years and was compulsorily retired. In January, 1994, when the petitioner was deployed at Bhadarwah (Jammu & Kashmir), he complained of diminishing hearing in his right ear, for which he was referred to Medical College and Hospital, Jammu, as an Outdoor Patient for ten days. Later on, he took treatment from various hospitals, but his clinical condition did not improve. After about one year, his left ear also developed impaired hearing. Resultantly, he was diagnosed severe mixed hearing loss of both ears by the Unit Medical Officer and placed under low medical category with the advice to follow up treatment. After treatment, condition of the petitioner did not improve and finally he was produced before the Medical Board on January 24, 2005 for re -categorization. He was examined by the Medical Board on January 24, 2005 and was diagnosed as Sensory Neural Hearing Loss (Right -Left) with old healed fractures 5th, 6th , 7th and 8th ribs (left) and was placed under medical category SIH3AIPIEI permanently with 55% disability with the advice for review after two years vide Annexure P1. The claim of the petitioner for disability pension was rejected vide order dated August 02, 2006 (Annexure P3).
(2.) IN this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated August 02, 2006 (Annexure P3). He ha also prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant 55% disability pension to him. In the reply filed by the respondents, they have justified the impugned order on the ground that the disability of the petitioner is not at all attributable to or aggravated by the Government service. However, it was denied that the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service of the Force.
(3.) WE have heard Ms. Sonia G. Singh, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Renu Bala Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the respondents and have gone through the records of the case.;