DASRATH SINGH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Col. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.P. Shukla learned counsel for & on behalf of Union of India With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties this petition is decided on merit at this stage under Second proviso Rule 2 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the rejection of disability, pension and the order dated 2.2.2000 of Government of India rejecting the appeal against the rejection of disability pension of the petitioner.

(2.) According to the petitioner he was enrolled in the Indian Army on 27.10.1992 and after training and was imparted in Rajput Regiment Centre. The petitioner came across ailment diagnosed as "INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABATES MELLITUS " and also suffered from Impoteney. According to the petitioner he was medically boarded on 12th July, 1996 and was accordinglv dispatched to his home town with denial of disability pension though disability had been assessed as 40% which was for a period of two years and thereafter, the petitioner was re-examined in respect of his disability and after discharge from Military Hospital without allowing rejoining his parent regimental centre which control the function of the soldiers has but in violation of norms his service was dispensed with which are in derogation to Defence Services Regulation ( Regulations for Army ) 1987 and against the principle of natural justice and the appeal of the petitioner against the denial of disability pension was also erroneously rejected by the Central Government on 2.2.2000. As contended on behalf of the petitioner that he is entitled for re-medical examination as the action of the respondents were against the principle of natural justice, perverse, unwarranted, illegal, arbitrary and against the norms. As contended on behalf of the petitioner a young person joining Armed Forced as physically/medicailly fit person, when suffers disability, has to be treated with compensation rather than attempts made to deny them disability pensionary benefits.

(3.) According to the respondent the petitioner was detected suffering from ' IDDM' i.e. " Insulin Dependent Diabetic Mellitus." This disease as per medical instructions is constitutional in nature and neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Hence the petitioner was brought before duly constituted medical board and was invalidated in Medical Category " EEE" (P), hence he was invalided out of service under Army Rule 13 (3)(111) (iii). This category is the lowest medical category and is given to the person who is permanently unfit to perform military duties and cannot be retained in service. These instructions are uniform in nature and are equally applicable to the members of military service. The respondents have raised preliminary objection for maintainability of this writ petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction in the light of the order dated 30.4.2003 passed by this Court ( D.B.) in writ petition No. 16528 of 2003. ( Lt. Colonel ( Mrs.) Saroj Mahanta v. Union of India and Ors. ) asserting that no part of action does not arise territorial jurisdiction of this court, therefore, the present writ petition is to be dismissed out rightly. As a matter of fact the petitioner had earlier filed writ petition against the discharge before the Allahabad High Court which was dismissed by this court( D.B.) on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner is residing at Kanpur area and counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged therefore, such preliminary objection may not come in adjudication of the writ petition.