BINAYAK ACHARYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can disability-pension be denied to an Army Craftsman, who in course of his service, developed disability and was invalidated out of the service on account of such disability? Is the question which needs determination in the present case.

(2.) The petitioner after facing rigorous recruitment process, was selected and on December 23, 1976 was appointed in the Indian Army as a Craftsman. He was directed to take specialised training in Electronics and Tele-Communication Engineering at I.E.T.E. New Delhi. He successfully coinpleted the course of Tele-Communication Engineering and was posted at Secundarabad. In the year 1980 he was transferred and posted at Delhi where he served till 1982 and thereafter he was posted at Pathankote. The petitioner discharged his duties to the best of his ability and satisfaction of the authorities. While serving at Pathankote, the petitioner was subjected to terrible stress and strain, and on December 7, 1983 he developed ailments and was admitted to the psychiatric ward at 165 Military Hospital, Pathankote. After preliminary treatment, he was discharged on January 2, 1984 and was advised for four weeks rest. The petitioner resumed his service and as per the advice of the doctor, he attended the Military Hospital, Pathankote as an out-door patient nowand then for about one year. While the matter stood thus, on July 20, 1986. the petitioner was reposted to E.M.E. Department Battalion. While he was service there, on July 31, 1986. he was discharged from servicing on the ground that he belonged to permanent low medical category. The petitioner was served with discharge certificate with a note that he is only fit for civil employment. It is allegerd in the writ application that after being discharged. the petitioner applied for disability pension. in view of the fact that his disability is attributable and aggravated in course of his military service. The authorities, though disbursed his gratuity and other retirement benefits, did not make any Communication regarding grant of disability pension. Being subjected to unsurmountable financial difficulties, the petitioner was constrained to approach the Sainik Board which advised him to ventilate his grievance before the E. M. E. Records. Secundarabad. Thereafter on August 16, 1997. the petitioner submitted a representation, to the officer -incharge, E.M.E. Record, Secundarabad, requesting therein to intimate him about sanction and disbursement of disability pension which he was otherwise entitled to. In response to the said representation, the officer-in charge, E.M.E. Record (opp party No. 4) on September 1, 1997 informed the petititoner that he is not entitle to disability pension as his disability is neither attributable nor aggravated during the military service. He was further intimated that his claim for disability pension has already been rejected on October 20, 1986 by opp party No. 3. Thereafter , the petitioner submitted several representations and ultimately preferred an appeal on September 18, 1997 which was forwarded to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence for consideration, On January 29, 1998/ February 3. 1998, opp party No. 4 intimated the petitioner that the Government of India, Ministry of Defence is actively considering his claim. Surprisingly, however, on March 17,1998, opp.party No. 4 once again informed the petitioner that the Government of India, Ministry of Defence has been pleased to turn down the appeal on the ground of delay. Said order (Annexure-9) is impugned in this case.

(3.) Pursuant to the notice. opp. parties have entered appearance and filed a return, inter alia, taking the stand that disability of the petitioner has no nexus with the Army service and the petitioner suffered from insomnia and headache due to pre occupation over his domestic problem. He was treated as a patient of Neurosis and was placed at low medical category, on February 16, 1984 and on subsequent reviews he was placed in Medical category B.E.E. permanent on July 22, 1985 as he was suffering from Neurosis 300. According to the recommendation of the Medical Board, he was discharged from service. It is emphatically submitted that the disability of the petitioner can neither be attributable nor aggravated by military service and according to the opinion of the Medical Board, his disability was a disease which is not connected with the Army service. On the basis of aforesaid averments, the opp parties submitted that in consonance with Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulation for Army, 1961 (Part-1), the petitioner is not eligible for grant of disability pension. For proper appreciation of the plea taken in the counter. relavent portion of the Regulation 17 of Pension Regulation is quoted here in below: