DEEPAK KUMAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought the quashing of order of discharge dated 3.12.1993 with direction to the respondents to reinstate him with full back wages and all consequential benefits. In the alternative, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to award disability medical pension to him

(2.) The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 22.3.1991 as Airman in the Trade - 'Photo Technician'. According to the petitioner, a board of Medical Officers, which conducted medical examination before his entry to the Air Force declared him fit in all respects and made no note of any disease or disability in the documents of his enrolment. In November, 1992, the petitioner completed initial training and was qualified as Aircraftsman and was posted in No.2 Sqn.Air Force. In May, 1993 he was sent on posting to E & I.T.I., Jalahalli East, Bangalore for conversion course from Photo Technician to Photo Filter Trade. It is further stated that on 23.7.1993 routine vaccines of TAB and Cholera administered to the petitioner at Station Sick Quarters, Jalahalli East, Bangalore. Such vaccines are administered in routine medical course. The petitioner developed fever and headache and frequent urination whereafter he started feeling weakness. On 2.8.1993 the petitioner's blood and sugar tests were conducted, which revealed that his urine had sugar contents. In Station Sick Quarters, he was given Glucose Saline without pre- diabetic precautions, which caused Diabetic KETO ACIDOSIC and the petitioner went in Coma. He was sent to Command Hospital A.F.Bangalore and was kept there for three months under treatment. As a result of further medical check up, the petitioner was declared a patient of Diabetic Mellitus (IDDM) 250 and was placed in Category EEE (Permanent) with 40% disability. Relying upon the medical opinion, the petitioner was invalided out of service. His claim for medical pension was also turned down by the Controller of Defence Accounts (P) Allahabad. Appeal was also preferred but of no avail.

(3.) The petitioner has challenged the order of discharge and non-grant of disability pension on the ground that discharge is illegal, unwarranted and is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Before enrollment, he was examined by a Board of Doctors, who had declared him fit. He became a victim of wrong treatment given at Station Sick Quarters and Command Hospital, Bangalore. Opinion of Medical Board at Command Hospital is wrong and is based upon wrong diagnosis. Because of the opinion of the Medical Board he was invalided out. The discharge based upon such wrong medical opinion is illegal. Though the percentage of disability was found to be 40% for 2 years, yet CCD(P), Allahabad, in an arbitrary manner, took a decision not to grant medical pension.