Dismissed

Union of India and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Jul 2010LPA/745/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an Letters Patent appeal filed by the Union of India challenging a Single Judge's order granting disability pension to the respondent ex-serviceman based on Medical Board opinion, finding no legal infirmity in the lower court's decision.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the appellant challenging the imugned order allowing disability pension to the respondent was dismissed.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Mohinder… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

-1-

¶2

LPA No. 745 of 2010

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

LPA No. 745 of 2010 Date of Decision 02.07.2010

¶5

Union of India and others

¶6

-----Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mohinder Singh ---Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Anil Rathee, Addl. C.G.S.C. for the appellants.

¶11

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

M.M. Kumar, J.

¶14

The view taken by the learned Single Judge has been challenged in the instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent. The Learned Single Judge has allowed the claim made by the petitioner-respondent for grant of disability pension and has issued direction to the appellant to workout the disability pension payable to him. The disability of the petitioner-respondent was assessed at 30%. However, the pecuniary benefits claimed by the petitioner have been confined to three years preceding the date of filing of the writ petition. It has been categorically found that the

¶15

LPA No. 745 of 2010

¶16

-2-

¶17

petitioner-respondent was brought before the Invalidating Medical Board and on the basis of Graded Specialist Opinion dated 23.09.2000, which recommended him to be released in lower medical category CEE (Permanent) for eye factor and also prescribed his disability upto 60%. On the aforesaid basis, petitioner was invalidated out of army service on 31.03.2001 with 60% disability, after rendering 17 years 12 days of total service. The claim made by the petitioner-respondent was rejected by the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad vide order dated 2.11.2001. The learned Single Judge has quashed aforesaid order by placing reliance on the various judgments of this Court in the case of Birbal v. Union of India , 2006 (3) SCT 319 , a Division Bench judgment in the case of A.J.S. Chaudhary v. Union of India and others , 1999 (1) RSJ 778 and Surjit Singh v. Secretary to the Government of India , 1999 (4) RSJ .

¶18

It is now well settled that the Medical Board is an expert body and its opinion has to be given due weightage, value and credence. The departmental authorities or the courts cannot substitute their opinion with that of the expert like Medical Board. For the aforesaid proposition, reliance may be placed on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others v. A.V. Damodaran , (2009) 9 SCC 140.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the considered view that no interference of this Court would be

¶20

LPA No. 745 of 2010

¶21

-3-

¶22

warranted because judgment of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The appeal does not warrant

¶23

admission and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶24

Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.