- (1.)This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to continue the disability pension consisting of both the service element and disability element w.e.f. 7.8.1952 onward for 30% disability along with all other consequential relief with interest at the rate of 18% p.a.
(2.)Few facts may first be noticed. The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on 17.10.1941. While in service, the petitioner was wounded in the active J&K Operation in 1948 as a bullet hit him on 11.7.1948 and he was admitted in the Military Hospital. He suffered the injury described as "LEFT FOREARM EFFECT OF". On 23.7.1949, the petitioner was invalidated out of the military service after rendering 7 years and 9 months service from 17.10.1941 to 23.7.1949. The disability of the petitioner was assessed at 30% permanent for life by the Medical Board, which was attributable and aggravated to military service. He was granted disability pension consisting of service element and disability element from 24.7.1949 to 6.8.1952. Thereafter the petitioner was again brought before the Resurvey Medical Board where his disability percentage was assessed to be static at 30% but the CCDD(P) accepted the disability to be less than 20%. Thereafter his disability pension was stopped. The Record Office of the respondents vide letter dated 5.11.1999 (P-2) admitted that the petitioner was wounded in J&K Operation in 1948 with 30% disability. The petitioner was given ex gratia grant of Rs. one lac in the year 2000. It is claimed that the petitioner made repeated representations with regard to substantial increase in percentage of disability and he was brought before the Resurvey Medical Board on 5.9.2001 in Military Hospital, Jalandhar Cantt., where he remained admitted from 31.8.2001 to 7.9.2001 and his injury was declared as permanent in nature. On 3.7.2001, the respondent intimated the petitioner that his percentage of disability was assessed at less than 20% on 10.9.1954 by the Resurvey Medical Board and therefore he is not entitled to the disability pension. The petitioner thereafter made representation dated 12.9.2001, served Notice of demand dated 1.5.2002 and a reminder dated 12.8.2001 for grant of disability pension consisting of both the elements. The respondents on 2.9.2002 replied to the legal notice and intimated that the CDA(P) in consultation with the Medical Advisor (Pension) had assessed the disability to be less than 20% for life and hence, the petitioner is not eligible and entitled to the disability pension at all. On 11.9.2002, the Record Office of the respondents addressed a letter to the Chief CDA(P) intimating that the service element is admissible to the petitioner, which was granted to him vide PC No. 139 II, dated 25.7.1949 and was required to be paid to the petitioner for whole of his life. Thereafter, the petitioner again represented to the respondents on 16.9.2002 and 231.9.2002, however, the respondents have failed to grant disability pension consisting of both the elements to the petitioner w.e.f. 7.8.1952 and onwards.
(3.)This petition was admitted on 17.2.2002. However, even after lapse of more than three years, no written statement has been filed by the respondents controverting the assertions made in the petition.