- (1.)Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record. his Court is clearly of opinion that the claim for disability pension as sought to be asserted by the petitioner remains totally bereft of substance; and this writ petition does not merit admission.
(2.)The petitioner has alleged in this petition for writ filed on 11.10.2007 that he was enrolled in the Indian Army on 27.08.1974 in a physically fit condition and after four years of service while being posted in Arunachal Pradesh, due to health problem and on the basis of report of the Medical Board, he was discharged from Army w.e.f. 18/19.10.1978 with reference to Item III (iii) of the Table annexed to the Army Rules of "having been found medically unfit for further service". According to the petitioner, on account of such discharge he was entitled for disability pension but was denied the same; and though he regularly approached the authorities but did not receive any disability pension. The petitioner has averred that he made representations for last 28 years but did not retain the copies of the same; that on 14.09.2005 he sent a written representation to the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 under registered post (Annex.2) and in response thereto received a letter dated 24.09.2005 (Annex.4) denying disability pension without assigning any reason but stating about the earlier order issued in the year 1979 for refusal of disability pension. The petitioner maintains that he had not received any such previous communication. The petitioner got served a notice through lawyer on 18.09.2007 (Annex.5) and then has filed the present writ petition.
(3.)With reference to the Army Pension Regulations and several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of this Court including those in S.K. Mastan Bee v. The General Manager, South Central Railway, 2003 1 LLJ 561 SC , State of W.B. v. Haresh C. Banerjee, 2006 3 LLJ 806 SC , Nathu Singh v. Union of India,2003 1 RLW 632, Emna (Smt.) W/o Late Sakuria v. The Union of India,2004 1 DNJ 238, Ex. Sgt. Tejpal Singh Chauhan v. Union of India,2004 3 WLC 190, Pratap Singh v. Union of India,2005 8 RDD 3161, The Union of India and Ors. v. Pratap Singh Rathore,2007 3 WLC 630, learned Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the petitioner having been discharged on medical grounds could not have been denied disability pension; that denial of disability pension is a continuing wrong and such action of the respondent is in breach of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The submissions remain hollow and baseless in the fact situation of the present case.