NAVIN CHANDRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common questions of law arise for consideration of the Court in all the three writ petitions and as such it will be appropriate to dispose of these petitions by a common judgment. W.P.(C) No. 5720/2006

(2.) Sh. Navin Chandra was enrolled in Indian Army as a sepoy on 21.12.1994. He was subjected to thorough medical examination conducted by the Board of doctors and was declared medically fit. Despite the rigorous physical training and strenuous army duty, the petitioner never showed any signs of any sickness. No signs of any disease were detected by the Medical Officers at any point of time. The petitioner successfully completed his initial training and was posted to 21st Kumaon Regiment, Palampur from where he was again sent to a higher altitude posting at Dimapur, Nagaland. The petitioner remained there for three years whereafter the petitioner was posted to Banbara, Khatima, Bareilly (U.P.). During his posting at that place on 21.6.2000 at 0800 hrs. when he was attending the briefing of the unit commanding officer at 21 Kumaon Regiment, he felt giddy and started vomitting. The petitioner was sent out of the assembly to avoid any inconvenience to others and was referred to Military Hospital, Bareilly, U.P., where the doctors detected his illness as "affective psychosis (depression)". The petitioner was not provided any rehabilitation measures to cure his illness and according to the petitioner, in violation to the settled guidelines and instructions contained in various Regulations and Manuals of the Army, he was invalidated out of the Army Service on 6.10.2000 on the plea of 'Affective Psychosis (depression)'. According to the petitioner he was not given any prior notice nor was he treated so as to remove his disability. On 1.10,2001 the petitioner submitted his claim for disability pension which was rejected, again wrongly and arbitrarily. Against this order of rejection, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was also rejected by the competent authority on 27.11.2004. While rejecting the claim pf the petitioner the appellate authority had passed the following order:-

(3.) It is also averred by the petitioner that the invalidation of the petitioner from service is contrary to the Rules and the laid down procedure has not been followed.