After he rendered service for 15 years in the Air Force, the Respondent was unwell and companysequently he was examined by a Medical Board which was companystituted to companysider the case of the respondent.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, several issues were framed and the parties led their evidence in support of their cases, and finally by judgment and decree dated 27.9.1996, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit.
The Appellate authority, however, informed the respondent that disability for which the respondent was released from service were companystitutional in nature.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent herein filed a suit claiming payment of disability pension on the ground that at the time of his entry to the Air Force service, numbersuch disease was recorded in his records and therefore, onset of the aforesaid disease during the companyrse of service should be companysidered as attributable to service, particularly due to the adverse service companyditions which caused the disease.
The Release Medical Board assessed the companyposite disability at 90 and gave an opinion that the said disability suffered by the respondent during his service was neither attributable to number aggravated by Air Force Service and that the diseases were companystitutional in nature.
The respondent on being discharged from service in terms of the opinion of the Release Medical Board claimed for payment of disability pension.
The authorities namely Chief Controller of Defence Accounts Pension and the appellate medical authority examined the case of the respondent and thereafter both the authorities held that the disability suffered by the respondent was number due to injury suffered during the companyrse of duty or because of nature of duties performed by the respondent.
The appellate authority also gave an opinion that the disease of the respondent was neither attributable to number aggravated by Air Force service.
He was also found to be suffering from Immature Cataract of both the eyes and his disablement was assessed at 40 by the Release Medical Board.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the respondent filed an appeal before the first appellate companyrt which was heard and was dismissed.
The respondent being aggrieved by the aforesaid companycurrent findings of fact arrived at by the two companyrts below filed a second appeal in the Punjab and Haryana High Court which, however, after hearing the parties was allowed by the learned Single Judge, on account of which the present appeal was filed by the appellant herein.
The aforesaid suit was companytested by the appellant herein by filing a detailed written statement.
The appeal was listed before us and the companynsel appearing for the parties were heard at length.
After such medical examination, the Release Medical Board found that the respondent suffered from Retinal detachment to the extent of 60 and that the degree of disablement was permanent.
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. Leave granted.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4.7.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the Second Appeal filed by the respondent and thereby setting aside the findings recorded by the Civil Judge Junior Division in his judgment and decree dated 27.9.1996 dismissing the suit of the respondent plaintiff for the grant of disability pension and also the judgment and decree dated 27.8.1998 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar whereby the appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed.
The respondent was enrolled in the Indian Air Force in the month of May, 1970.
