GEORGE P. V. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A discharged soldier of the Indian Army comes up before this Court, a second time, seeking disability pension. He entered military service as a soldier on 12th June, 1954. He continued in military service till 07/05/1963. He was discharged from military service on medical grounds on detection of the disease 'Schizophrenia', which is a mental disorder. At the time when he entered service he had no such medical condition. It is only after nine years of service that he was detected with the disorder and discharged from military service. In spite of the same, the medical wing of the military service opined that this disease was not attributable to military service. Consequently, disability pension was denied to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged that decision in Original Petition 17488/1995 before this Court. In that original petition, by Ext. P9 judgment, this Court came to the prima facie conclusion that the disability suffered by the petitioner should be attributable to the military service and after considering the various provisions of the Entitlement Rules, this Court directed the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter in a pragmatic and lenient view and to pass fresh orders within the period mention therein. Pursuant that, Ext. P10 order was passed again holding that the disability suffered by the petitioner is not attributable to military service. The petitioner is challenging Ext. P10 order.

(2.) The petitioner's contention is that he having entered military service in full faculty of mind and worked in the military service for almost nine years, in the absence of any other reason it must be concluded that this medical condition arose only on account of military service. He also points out that the petitioner was working in the border areas of China and Pakistan where the petitioner was under extreme physical and mental tension which could be a very possible reason for contracting the particular disease. Therefore in the absence of any other possible reasons, the disability should be attributable to military service is the contention raised by the petitioner.

(3.) On the other hand the Central Government Counsel would contend that since the medical opinion produced as Ext. R1(a) specifically states that this medical condition cannot be attributable to military service, this Court cannot go beyond the medical opinion to come to a different conclusion. He also refers to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Bharath Metha v. State, 2008 KHC 4459 : 2008 (5) SCC 752 and Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) v. Balachandran Nair, 2005 KHC 1819 : 2005 (4) KLT 703 : ILR 2005 (4) Ker. 773 : 2005 (13) SCC 128 : AIR 2005 SC 4391 in support of the Union of India v. Keshar Singh, 2007 KHC 3538 : 2007 (3) KLT 171 (SC) : JT 2007 (6) SC 20 in support of his contentions.