RAJESH KUMAR SHRIVASTAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this writ petition, which was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, an invalidated Army Captain, who died on 4.9.1997 and substituted by his widow and minor children vide order dated 6.9.200, a prayer has been made to quash the Order dated 2nd August, 1991 as contained in Annexure -12 and the Order dated 8th January, 1996 as contained in Annexure SA -1.

(2.) IN the Counter Affidavit, which has been filed by Lieutenant Colonel S. Sudarsan posted as Qualified Specialist (Psychiatric), Command Hospital (EC) Calcutta, it has been stated, inter alia , that Schizophrenia is a constitutional disorder which can manifest itself at anytime, it is chronic and has frequent relapses; the disorder is conceptualized as a syndrome that is heterogeneous in its cause, pathogenesis, presenting picture, course, response to treatment, and outcome; unless the symptoms are manifested there are no means of detecting or predicting the possibility of this disease at the time of selection; promotion in Army is a routine administrative matter, armed forces makes arrangement for safe drinking water even in the most remote and uncongenial areas/places where troops of the Indian Army has to serve; and serving at Field Areas is an essential service requirement for an army personnel and there cannot be any exception to it; after the petitioner was diagnosed as suffering from Duodenal Ulcer, he was given complete medical treatment and kept under lower medical category for surveillance and on full recovery was upgraded, there is no medical record whatsoever of any injury in relation to the alleged scooter accident hence it is evident that the nature of injury, if at all sustained, was trivial, the letter of Major Ganesh Sah (Annexure -2 to the writ petition) it self shows that the petitioner was already showing early features suggestive of Schizophrenia prior to the Scooter accident; the allegations made in Paragraph 12 are denied and in reply it is submitted that the petitioner was duly admitted in the Military Hospital and Schizophrenia was diagnosed and was treated for the same and on recovery was placed in medical category S -3 (T -24) with effect from 18th December, 1986; report on AFMSF -10 (Armed Forces Medical Services Form) (Annexure -3 to the writ petition) was initiated in June, 1987 for routine review and re -categorisation which was due and his behaviour was reported as normal as he remained in a state of remission; in October; 1987 the petitioner showed feature of relapse of Schizophrenia for which a fresh AFMSF -10 for his hospitalisation and treatment was initiated; surprisingly the petitioner has made no mention of his AFMSF -10 initiated at the first hospitalization in May/June, 1986; it is wrong to say that abnormality in his behaviour was detected for the first time in October, 1987; the fact is that it was detected for the first time in the year 1986; in April/May, 1988 he had a relapse of Schizophrenia again, Schizophrenia was not caused by the alleged Scooter accident as claimed by him; the Military service has no bearing either in causation or aggravation in the case of the petitioner and is a very serious ailment and thus it would not be in the interest of Army to retain him; in Annexure -13 the petitioner himself admits that he is still not mentally well and is continuing treatment and accordingly his contention that he is normal and fit for service is incorrect; the deponent himself is a qualified psychiatrist with full sense of responsibility submits that a person suffering from Schizophrenia is prone to unpredictable and unprovoked violent behaviour and is a threat to safety of other and self as such also he is not fit for Military service; as the disability pension is granted to a person only when the disability is either attributable to or aggravated by military service; the deponent respectfully submits to refer to the opinion of Col. Rajendra Singh, Senior Advisor (PSY) of CH (EC), Calcutta, as contained in Annexure -C.A. -1; thus this writ petition be dismissed which has been filed on the grounds which are wholly misconceived and unsustainable in law. Annexure C.A. -1 states, inter alia , the history of the petitioner from time to time on account of the disease in question and even of filing of a Divorce case by his wife.

(3.) MR . Shesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended as follows: