LAWS(ALL)-2003-1-99

RAJESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On January 31, 2003
RAJESH KUMAR SINGH Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the instant writ petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 13.1,1989 as contained in Annexure-1 whereby he was intimated that the Director General (Post) New Delhi has not agreed to grant him the Disability Pension as well as orders dated 14.3.1990 and dated 15.3.1991 as contained in Annexures-2 and 3 whereby the appeal and the second appeal preferred by him against the order refusing him to grant disability pension have been rejected.

(2.) The controversy in the instant writ petition arises in the following circumstances :

(3.) A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties wherein it has been indicated that the petitioner sustained head injury when a rolling stone hit the vehicle. The petitioner was treated at 48 Base Hospital Uddhampur from 10th October, 1985 to 12th October, 1985. After two weeks of treatment the case of the petitioner was reviewed by the Medical Authorities who found him medically fit in all respects. The said injury according to the opposite parties was attributable to Military Service. However, the counter-affidavit further goes to show that the petitioner proceeded on annual leave with effect from 7th October, 1987 to 16th October, 1987 and when he came back to resume his duties, unusual behaviour was noticed in him. The petitioner was, thereafter, referred for medical examination and Annexure-C.A.-6 is the report furnished on a case of psychiatric examination. The said report reveals that the individual has been mentally disturbed by the attitude of his family members. This is said to have been stated by him, as also his brother who accompanied him. It further shows that he could be retained in service after treatment. The petitioner was sent on sick leave with certain medicines prescribed. During the sick leave, the condition of the petitioner did not Improve, therefore, his case was recommended before the Board. The Medical Board opined as follows ;