Ram Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

Learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted the prayers made in this petition only to the grant of disability pension to the petitioner.

The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Home Guard on 22.06.1994. During the year 2008-09, petitioner suffered disease of 'paresis' in left lower limb. Gradually both lower limbs of the petitioner were affected by the said disease. Because of this disease, petitioner did not even appear in the quarterly parade on 22nd and 23rd June 2011. He was issued a show cause notice by respondent No.4 in this regard on 24.06.2011. The disease affected petitioner's legs and eventually he was declared medically disabled to the extent of 53%. The disability certificate dated 13.11.2014 described the petitioner to be suffering from 53% permanent locomotor disability. On the basis of this certificate, the petitioner applied to the respondents on 19.01.2015 for providing him disability pension. The representation was followed with further requests to the respondents by the petitioner in this regard on 21.01.2015 and 28.01.2015.

The office of the respondents forwarded one such request of the petitioner to respondent No.3 on 25.03.2015. The request of the petitioner was not allowed, instead respondent No.3 vide communication dated 26.08.2017 (Annexure P-10) removed/terminated the petitioner from the services. This order itself has been passed on account of the fact that the petitioner being disabled, can not be deployed to perform any duty. It is in the aforesaid background that the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition claiming disability pension.

Grievance projected on behalf of the petitioner is that because of the disease 'paresis', petitioner has suffered 53% permanent locomotor disability. Therefore, in accordance with law, petitioner had applied to the respondents for grant of disability pension to him. Instead of considering his case, in accordance with law, the respondents terminated/removed him from service.

On one hand, respondent No.3 has removed/terminated the petitioner vide order dated 26.08.2017 on the ground that petitioner is disabled and cannot discharge any duty. Whereas on the other hand, respondent No.3 has declined to grant the petitioner the disability pension on the count that he had not supplied the requisite documents i.e. disability certificate issued by the medical board etc. It will be appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the reply filed by the respondents:-

"10. .........That the representation for disability pension was received but as stated above the petitioner had neither reported any illness during duty time nor had submitted any treatment record to the replying respondents. As per the Himachal Pradesh Home Guards Rule 1971 Gazette dated Nov. 11, 1989 (Annexure R-I) no pension could be given to the petitioner under the Head of invalid pension as the petitioner had not submitted any treatment record pertaining to his illness. It is admitted vide annexure P-10 the services of petitioner was terminated on account of absence from the duty. It is mentioned here that the petitioner has submitted permanent disability certificate to the extent of 53% so the services of petitioner was terminated as per the Home Guard Rule."

The stand taken by the respondents for denying the disability pension to the petitioner prima facie appears to be contrary to their stand taken for terminating petitioner's services. During hearing of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner had been discriminated viz-a-viz other similar situated cases. Learned counsel further submitted that one Pardeep Kumar, a Home Guard with the respondents, after suffering from disability had been granted disability pension. However, the same benefit has been illegally denied to the petitioner.

Respondent No.3 had removed the petitioner on the ground of his becoming disabled and not in a position to discharge his duties. Whereas, the stand of the respondents taken in their reply filed to the writ petition is that the disability pension has been denied to the petitioner on the ground of his having not submitted the required treatment record to the respondents. Both these stands are at tangent to each other. Under these circumstances, it will be appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition by directing respondent No.3/competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for grant of disability pension. Therefore without adverting to the merits of the respective contentions but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) Respondent No.3/competent authority within two weeks from today shall call upon the petitioner to supply all the documents required by them for determining petitioner's eligibility for grant of disability pension. (ii) Within four weeks thereafter, the petitioner shall supply the requisite documents to respondent No.3/competent authority. (iii) Within further period of four weeks, thereafter, respondent No.3/competent authority shall decide the case, after hearing the petitioner, by passing a speaking order in the matter, in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.