AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Was the disability contracted in service
YES","2. Was it contracted in circumstances over which he
had no control.
YES
Is it directly attributable to condition of service
YES","4. If so, by what specific condition? Injured during
cross country run
If not directly attributable to service was it aggravated there by and if so, by
what specific condition?
NA","6. Medical category recommended
A3 (T-24)
Period for which the above medical Category Recommended
6 Months","8. What is the category likely to be:-
(a) Six month from the date of board _________
(b) Finally to be decided later on
Any specific restriction regarding Employment
Sedentary duty","10. Further treatment/investigation required
YES
Period of leave recommended if any
NA","12. Next Board due on
22-08-2008
APPROVING AUTHORITY,
Sd/- illegible,
DIG,
Dir (Med),
Directorate General Assam Rifles,
Shillong-793011""",
Thereafter, in the annual medical examination dated 31.12.2008, the writ petitioner was recommended for the aforesaid medical category for",
the principal disability of fracture of basicervical neck (RT) femur (OPTD). Thereafter, the medical board dated 16.03.2009 put the writ petitioner",
in the medical category A2 (P) w.e.f. 22.02.2009 while fixing the next date of examination by the medical board as 22.02.2011.,
The case of the writ petitioner had been that with the intention of depriving him of disability pension and ex-gratia lump sum compensation, the",
Director General of Assam Rifles issued a notice on 21.01.2011, purportedly under Fundamental Rule [""FR?] 56 (j) and Rule 48 of Central Civil",
Services (Pension Rules), 1972 informing him that he would retire from service on 01.05.2011. On being thus retired from service, the writ",
petitioner submitted a representation on 16.07.2013 for grant of disability pension and ex-gratia payment; and on being denied the relief, preferred",
the writ petition leading to this appeal.,
It was, inter alia, contended before the learned Single Judge that instead of convening a medical board on 22.02.2011 for medical re-",
categorisation and to decide the percentage of disability and to board him out on medical ground, the concerned authorities sent him to 151 Base",
Hospital at Guwahati only for medical re-categorisation and in such a manner, he was sought to be deprived of disability pension and other",
benefits. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that the writ petitioner was entitled to the disability pension under the Central Civil,
Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939 and ex-gratia lump sum benefits as per the standard procedure.",
The learned Single Judge took note of FR 56 (a) and FR 56 (j) and also the CCS Pension (Extraordinary Pension) Rules and, while relying on",
the decision of the Gauhati High Court in the case of Ex.Rfn Manku Pradhan v. Union of India & Ors reported in 2013 (4) GLT 28, held the",
petitioner entitled to disability pension while observing as under:,
The petitioner had been discharged from service on low medical category for the injury sustained by him while he was on training",
on 03.12.2007 and also it is clear from the finding of the Court of Inquiry and also the medical board that the injury sustained by the,
petitioner was attributable to service. In such circumstances, this Court is of the clear view that the petitioner is entitled to get",
disability pension as provided under Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules. Pension is not the bounty of the employer,
but it is the right earned by the employee under the rules. The right of the petitioner to get the disability pension under Central Civil,
Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules cannot be denied by the authorities at their whims. The Division Bench of the Gauhati High,
Court in Ex. Rfn Manku Pradhan v. Union of India & Ors reported in 2013 (4) GLT 28 was also of the similar view that the,
members of the Assam Rifles who had been discharged from service on low medical category because of the injuries sustained by the,
members of the Assam Rifles while in service and also such injuries is attributable to service, is entitled to get disability pension.""",
The learned Single Judge also considered it appropriate to impose exemplary costs on the appellants to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-.",
Assailing the order so passed by the learned Single Judge, the basic contention on behalf of the appellants is that the writ petitioner was not",
medically boarded out and hence, was not entitled to the disability pension or other related benefits. It is contended that the writ petitioner was",
allowed to continue in service despite being placed in low medical category P-2 (Permanent) so as to facilitate his getting the pension benefits but,",
for having been boarded out after completing 30 years of service, the writ petitioner was not entitled for disability pension as he had enjoyed the",
benefits of service till the date of his retirement.,
Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has duly supported the order impugned and submitted that the petitioner was not retained",
on service only because of the disability; and the disability being attributable to the service, he remains entitled to the disability pension.",
Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and having examined the record, we are unable to find any reason to consider",
interference in the order passed by the learned Single Judge in this case except as regards the costs awarded.,
Going by the very submissions made by the appellants, it remains indisputable that the respondent/writ petitioner was not considered fit to be",
retained, after having completed 30 years of service, only for the reason of his low medical category and for no other reason. Even if the writ",
petitioner was continued in service for some time after acquiring disability, the fact of the matter remains that the review medical board dated",
16.03.2009, while downgrading his medical category to A2 (P) w.e.f. 22.02.2009, fixed the next medical board on 22.02.2011. However, before",
this date, the Director General of Assam Rifles issued the order dated 21.01.2011 in the purported exercise of powers conferred by Clause 56 (j)",
of the Fundamental Rules and Rule 48 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 because of completion of 30 years of service by the writ",
petitioner on 06.01.2011. It had not been the case that the writ petitioner was continued in service until reaching the age of superannuation and in,
fact, at the time of discharge, he was 49 years 11 months and 19 days of age. When it remains a matter rather indisputable that the writ petitioner",
was not retained in service only because of disability acquired by him; and such a disability having been conclusively accepted by the authorities,
concerned as being attributable to the condition of service, the view as taken by the learned Single Judge serves the cause of justice and cannot be",
said to be suffering from any such infirmity as to call for interference in this intra-court appeal. Even if the writ petitioner was continued in service,
for some time and until completion of 30 years of service, his case cannot be taken as standing on different footings than the other cases where the",
incumbents are medically boarded out, particularly for the purpose of disability pension and other related benefits.",
In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge on merits of the case. However, there",
were no such feature in the matter wherefor, exemplary costs were required to be imposed on the appellants; and in our view, in the totality of",
circumstances, the parties deserve to be left to bear their own costs of this litigation.",
Accordingly, while the order passed by the learned Single Judge on merits of the case is not interfered with but this appeal is partly allowed",
only to the extent that paragraph 12 of the order impugned imposing costs on the appellants is annulled and the parties are left to bear their own,
costs of this litigation throughout.,