Khem Chand Vs. M.C.D.

.....to everyone as an incident of military service, a specific provision has been incorporated in the pension regulations to bring such travel within the entitlement for disability pension if an injury is sustained in this duration. fifthly, it cannot be said that each and every injury sustained while availing of casual leave would entitle the victim to claim disability pension. sixthly, provisions treating casual leave as on duty would be relevant for deciding questions pertaining to pay or to the right of the authorities to curtail or cancel the leave. lastly, injury or death resulting from an activity not connected with military service would not justify and sustain a claim for disability pension. this is so regardless f whether the injury or death has occurred at the place of posting or during working hours. this is because attributability to military service is a factor which is required to be established. - the petitioner satisfied the criteria only in the year 1997 as he was promoted to the post of senior pharmacist in the year 1994. he was, thereforee, considered and promoted to the said post on 1.4.1998. 6. the respondents have also clarified that according to the new roster for promotion issued by the government of india and applicable from july, 1997, roster point vacancy for the scheduled caste candidate would be only at 7th post......a retrospective date somewhere in 1984 would be allowed by this court and, thereforee, he would be entitled for promotion to the post of head pharmacist from a retrospective date.3. by my judgment and order delivered today, i have dismissed the writ petition filed by the present petitioner seeking his promotion to the post of senior pharmacist with retrospective date registered as c.w.p. no. 1784/1991.4. as of today, the respondents have not notified the final recruitment rules governing policy of promotion to the post of head pharmacist. however pending finalisation of the recruitment rules, the respondents decided to fill up the posts of head pharmacist on ad hoc basis as four posts of senior pharmacist were upgraded to head pharmacist on 4.8.1993.5. as per the draft recruitment rules, the post of head pharmacist is to be filled up through the mode of selection of 100% by promotion from senior pharmacist with three years service in the grade. the petitioner satisfied the criteria only in the year 1997 as he was promoted to the post of senior pharmacist in the year 1994. he was, thereforee, considered and promoted to the said post on 1.4.1998.6. the respondents have also clarified that according to the new roster for promotion issued by the government of india and applicable from july, 1997, roster point vacancy for the scheduled caste candidate would be only at 7th post. however, the case of the petitioner for promotion was considered and he was promoted as the board decided to extend the benefit to the petitioner as his case was under consideration.7. thus, there could be no further grievance of the petitioner in respect of his promotion to the post of head pharmacist and the writ petition stands dismissed as such, but, without cost.