Jagannath Singh Negi Ex-JC No. 123067 'A' Subedar vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—The petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to grant disability pension to him by quashing the orders of the respondents dated 22.4.1988, 31.3.1989 and 16.11.1989 rejecting the request of the petitioner for disability pension.

The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on 13.5.1963 after having been found medically fit. He was also promoted to higher ranks and put in service of twenty two years. In the year 1985 he developed ear trouble while in service. Ultimately, he became deaf though he was treated in the Military Hospital. The Medical Specialists opined that the disability was attributable to Military service and assessed at 70 per cent. The petitioner was invalided out of military service due to disability namely "perceptive Deafness Both Ears" on 10.11.1987. Thereafter the petitioner applied for the disability pension. The said request of the petitioner was rejected by the authorities on the ground that the disability was not attributable to military service. Therefore, the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to grant him disability pension.

In the written statement, the respondents have taken the stand that the disability was not attributable to the military service and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to disability pension and the request of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the authorities.

There is no dispute that under Para 173 of the Pension Regulation for the Army 1961 a disability pension may be granted to an individual which is invalided from service on account of disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service and is assessed at 20% or over. It is, therefore, to be seen whether the deafness suffered by the petitioner was attributable to military service. There is no dispute about the facts that at the time when the petitioner suffered the ear trouble he was attending the fire range classification and other types of duties which involved sound process of louder intensity and the same affected the hearing process of the petitioner .There is also no dispute that the disability is 70%. The report of the Medical Board is to the following effect:-

"A case of perceptive deafness both the ears of following acuter upper respiratory catrach is Sept. 1985. Deafness was on sudden onset and gradually progressive started from right ear followed by left ear. No History of timmiting or virtige. It was also opined that I had no history of Head Injury or after effect of use of drugs or any kind of other all most. Even other kinds of the ear were opined as intact and no abnormality was detected. The disability was held as 70%"

From the above narration of facts, it is clear that the petitioner suffered the disability of deafness at 70% while he was on duty attending fire range classification which involved sound process of louder intensity. Therefore, it cannot be said that the disability is not attributable to military service. On the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that the disability suffered by the petitioner is attributable to military service. The respondents have not adduced any proof that the disability suffered by the petitioner was not related to the Service. The petitioner was physically found fit at the time of recruitment in all respects. After putting in service of 22 years when he was on duty at a place where there was heavy sound, the petitioner suffered the disability. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the claim of the petitioner for disability pension was wrongly rejected by the authorities.

In the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to disability pension. Though the request of the petitioner was finally rejected on 16.11.1989, the petitioner approached this Court only on 31.5.1994. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to disability pension for the period commencing from Ist of June, 1991 i.e. since three years prior to the filing of the writ petition as the limitation for filing the suit for recovery of he amount of arrears due is only three years.

In the light of the above discussion, I allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to sanction the disability pension to the petitioner with effect from 1.6.1991 and pay the arrears thereof within three months from the receipt of the copy of this court. However, there will be no order as to costs.