HC Writ Disability Pension in Marathi

HC Writ Disability Pension 

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF TN AT CHENNAI

CWP No.:______ of 2004

Petitioner 

Versus

Respondents 

List Of Events 

Dates:______ 

Events :______ 

Chennai Petitioner 

:______ Through, Advocate 

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF TN AT CHENNAI

CWP No.::______ of 2004

Petitioner 

Versus

Respondents 

Civil Writ Petition Under Article 226/227 Of The Constitution Of India For Appropriate Writ, Order Or Directions To The Respondents 

Chennai 

Petitioner 
______ 

Through, Advocate 

Respectfully Sheweth; 

1. That your Lordship's humble petitioner is a citizen of India and on the grounds hereinafter mentioned is entitled to file and maintain the present writ petition before this Hon'ble Court. 

2. ________________________ 

3. That the petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on _______________ as a ________________. The petitioner was allotted Army No. ________________. The petitioner was initially engaged for _______ years of service and with the passage of time the petitioner would have earned promotion upto the rank of Subedar Major and Honorary ranks and he would have thus served upto 32 years of service in the Army. 

4. That the petitioner was undergoing very hard and strenuous basic training successfully and to the entire satisfaction of his superiors and the instructors. The petitioner had all the traits and capabilities of becoming a good soldier and serving the nation. The petitioner had very successfully completed _____ months basic training. 

5. That the medical authorities after carrying out investigations diagnosed the disease of the petitioner as _________________ and placed the petitioner in the lower medical category ______ on ______ vide Annexure P-_____________________ and as a result of which the petitioner was invalided out of the Military Service, without offering him an opportunity either to give his willingness or unwillingness for retention in the Army against the sheltered or alternative appointment and show cause against his invalidment out of the service in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the subject matter. 

6. That thereafter the petitioner was invalided out of service w.e.f. _________________________ barely after _____ months _____ days of service without paying any invalidment benefits, ie; invalid/disability pension to the petitioner, which is admissible to him under the rules and regulations. The petitioner was intimated to his utmost surprise and dismay by the respondent vide Annexure P-____________________ that he is not entitled to the Disability Pension. The petitioner has thereafter preferred an appeal against the said rejection vide Annexure P-_______________________ which has been acknowledged as having been received by the respondents vide Annexure P-________________. But, unfortunately, the respondents do not seem to be paying any heed towards the representation of the petitioner even after more than _________________________ months have elapsed. 

7. That the medical authority vide Annexure P-________________________ has advised the petitioner to take medicines up to ________________ years of service, meaning thereby that the petitioner was fit to be retained in the service and his disease was curable within the period of three years. 

8. That the petitioner not feeling satisfied with the findings and recommendations of the military medical authorities got himself checked up at ________________________. The medical authorities has opined that the petitioner has ___________________________, meaning thereby that the petitioner has been cured of the disease and is thus fit to be taken back and retained in the Army. The report of the Medical Authorities of is Annexed as Annexure P-__________________________. 

GROUNDS

9. That Your Lordship's humble petitioner is invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court and seeking indulgence on the following grounds amongst others, each one of which is without prejudice to and independent of other :- 

(a) That the impugned action of the respondents whereby _______________ is arbitrary, malafide, illegal, unjust, against the Art 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India as well as against the natural justice and dehors the rules and regulations. 

(b) __________________________That it would not be out of place to mention here that the petitioner had no similar type of episode either before or thereafter or during the course of admission in the military hospital for investigations for about 66 days. 

(c) That the petitioner was found fit to join the Army at the time of his enrollment by the military medical authorities. Now it does not lie in their mouth to say to the contrary. ____________________Moreover there is no history of the disease in the family or relation of the petitioner. 

(d) That otherwise also the percentage of disability as assessed by the military medical authorities is of moderate degree, meaning thereby that the petitioner should have either been placed in category BEE or at the most in category CEE in accordance with the Army Order No. 146 of 1977 and retained him by giving him the Sheltered Appointment or the alternative appointment as provided for under the provisions of Army Order No. 46 of 1980 which provides that the efforts should be made to provide alternative employment in their own trade/category commensurate with their medical categorisation. And the Order further provides that ordinarily, permanent low medical category personnel will be retained in service till completion of 15 years service in the case of JCOs and 10 years in the case of OR [including NCOs]. The respondents have taken no efforts to provide the alternative sheltered appointment to the petitioner. This provision has been made with the intention so that the soldier can earn a normal service pension after 10 years of service. Here it would not be out of place to mention that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ordered sheltered appointment even to the blind persons in the case Anand Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn reported in AIR 1991 SC 1003 and in another case titled as Kishan Lal Vs Union of India reported in 1988 [3] SLJ [CAT] 272 the sheltered appointment was ordered to the blind persons.