EX SEP ROOP SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment, we shall dispose of the above six petitions as common question of law, based upon somewhat similar facts though with different diseases, falls for consideration of the court.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have relied upon a recent judgment of a Division Bench of this court in the case of Ex. Cfn. Sugna Ram Ranoliya v. UOI and others, wp(C) No. 3699/2004, decided on 27.7.2006 as well as judgments of other High Courts and the Supreme Court of India in support of their plea that the diseases for which the petitioners have been invalided out of military service are either attributable to or aggravated by military service and they are entitled to receive disability pension in accordance with Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations'). It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners in these different writ petitions that the medical record which has not been prepared in accordance with the regulations, defence service regulations and the instructions contained in the medical manual for army cannot form the basis for denial of such benefits. It is a common contention in all these cases that the petitioners had served the army for number of years without suffering from any ailment much less from any physical or mental disability. They were subjected to strict fitness standards during medical and physical tests and thereafter the rigorous training. They had no complaint of any kind prior to their being diagnosed as suffering from different ailments resulting in their invaliding out of military service. In all these petitions, the petitioners have been invalided out of army service as a result of their suffering from Carcinoma Oesphaus, Schizophrenia, Neurosis, Essential or Primary Hypertension and Psoriasis with Arthropathy. It is the case of the petitioners that they were not suffering from any of the diseases indicated in the medical report at the time of their induction into army and for a number of years when they were serving. It is the rigours of service posting at different places including high altitudes or injuries suffered by them during the course of their service that resulted in onset of such diseases. All these diseases even if said to be not attributable would, in any case, be aggravated by army service. The regulations, instructions and entitlement rules clearly show that the intention of the rule making authorities is to extend such benefit to the sufferers rather than deprive them of such a benefit. While heavily relying upon the Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Ex.Cfn. Sugna Ram Ranoliya (supra) ,they laid emphasis on the following paragraphs of the said judgment:-

(3.) They have also relied upon another recent judgment of a Division Bench of this court in the case of Navin Chandra v. UOI and others, wp(C) No. 5720/2006, decided on 27.7.2006, to contend that the concept of constitutional disease or disorder without any basis or proper diagnosis cannot legally form the basis for denial of the disability pension. They referred to the following part of the judgment:-