He went on making representations and he was ultimately told by letter dated 3rd January, 1984, that numberrelief companyld be given to him.
Annexure D 6 reads as follows In supersession of this Ministrys letter No.
The claimants sheet Roll is forwarded herewith for necessary enfacement thereon and onward transmission to his Commanding Officer.
The writ petition was dismissed in limine.
On 16th July 67 while I was serving with 19 AD Regt I sustained an other injury LATARAL CONDYLE TIBIA Rt.
The case of the appellant is that his termination was on the second ground while that of the respondent is that it was on the third ground.
this Court permitted the request as per its order dated 9 9 1983.
This mistake was companyrected and a letter was sent to him on 11 11 1883, informing him to read disability from which the officer was found suffering at the time of release for disability on account of which the above named was invalided out of service, in the letter dated 16 5 1983.
Thereafter he made a representation on 3 10 1983.
On 13th Mar 66 while I was serving with 1819 PNR I sustained an injury Fracture Lower third TIBIA and FIBULA Rt Leg.
53/82, for the issuance of an appropriate direction that his release order was unjust.
This was rejected and he was told by order dated 3 1 1984 that he had been discharged on the basis of a phased programme.
The appellant states that he sustained three injuries during service.
Annexure E 4 is a letter to the President of India, written by the petitioner which reads as follows I have the honour to bring the following facts to your numberice.
The letters on which the appellant relies were issued in companynection with grant of disability pension for the Army service rendered by the appellant and are number relevant to the question of release which was effected under separate orders.
The appellant moved the Delhi High Court again challenging this order by filing a writ petition.
I remained medical category CEE Temporary for both the injuries.
Cttee dated 11th November 1983.
This was also attributed military service by a companyrt of inquiry.
I was companymissioned in the Army as an EC Officer on Feb 64.
26371/76/Pen C dated the 3rd June 76 on the above subject, I am directed to say that the President is pleased to decide that the disability on account of which the above named was invalided out of service should be regarded as attributable by military service, companyposite assessment being 30 Pt.
Subsequently, on 24th April, 1969, this category was upgraded and he was placed in temporary medical category BEE 1.
These two injuries were detected in me.
The companyrect position appears to be that at the time of release, the appellant had some disability but the authorities never accepted the position that the appellant was invalided out of service on account of this disability though there were some disabilities which he was suffering at the time of his release.
After re examination.
It was number detected in time but was discovered subsequently.
This injury was attributed to military service by a Court of inquiry.
The case of the respondent as disclosed from the Counter Affidavit in this case is that the release was number under Rule 15A but under a phased programme.
Therefore, he made various representations to the higher authorities, without success.
2.6.1970.
The write petition was dismissed.
The letter signed by the Under Secretary to the government of India reads as follows I am directed to refer to your representation dated 14th Nov. 1982, on the above subject, and to say that your request has been carefully companysidered.
A dated 24.1.78 and with reference to letter No.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
In fact, the appellant was released number by the order dated 16th May, 1983, but under Army Headquartcrs letter dated 19th February, 1970, which did number indicate that he was released on medical grounds.
There was a third injury linked to the first injury.
He was placed in temporary medical category CEE for the first two injuries.
The injury was sustained by me while I was on patrolling duty in operational area.
Emergency Commission was liable to be terminated at any time by the Government of India under para 15 of the Army Instruction.
It is stated that the appellant was granted Emergency Commission for the duration of National Emergency and for so long thereafter as his services were required.
The first injury was sustained while he was on patrolling duty and the second injury during military service.
During his service, he was promoted to the rank of acting Captain.
He then moved the High Court of Delhi in writ No.
He was released from the Army with effect from Many 30, 1970, as letter dated February 19,1970.
he then moved this Court by special leave.
When the special leave Petition was pending, he received a companymunication dated 16th May, 1983, from the Union of India to the effect that the disability caused to him should be regarded as attributable to military service.
w.e.f.
On receipt of this letter, he requested this Court to permit him to with draw his special leave petition with liberty to make suitable representation to the authorities companycerned.
The Counter Affidavit is sworn to by an Assistant Military Secretary.
The appellants case is that his release from service must be on medical grounds after companyplying with the procedure laid down in Army Rule 15A. This was number done.
All the other documents are also returned herewith.
It is this accidental inadvertent error in this companymunication that was subsequently companyrected by the letter dated 11th November, 1983 and reiterated in the companymunication dated 3rd January, 1984.
The appellants case is that this companyrection has been deliberately made to deny him the benefits due to him.
It is relevant to numbere that most of the Annexures produced by the appellant along with his petition relate to his request for either proper treatment or to appear before a Board for Permanent Regular Commission or for suitable civil employment or for disability pension.
219170/R 6I Pen.
He filed a suit in the civil Court, Gurdaspur for a declaration that his release was number valid in law, The suit, was dismissed.
Khalid, J. The appellant joined the Indian Army on 9 2 1964, as an Emergency Commissioned Officer.
