UNION OF INDIA Vs. BINAYAK ACHARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Addl. Central Government Counsel. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant sought to annul the order of the learned Single Judge placing strong reliance upon the amended Rule by way of substitution vide Corrigendum notice dated 20.6.1996 to Rule 14 of Entitlement Rules, 1982 which is applicable to the case of the respondent as he was required to prove that the deceased was affected with disability after he joined the service. Therefore, he is entitled to disability pension under the Rules as his condition was affected and he became disabled on account of the condition of military service. The medical report is not in favour of the respondent for granting disability pension benefit under the rules.

(2.) Further the learned counsel on behalf of the Appellant has urged that the learned Single Judge has brushed aside the said statement of the medical board stating that it has failed to disclose that the respondent had sustained ailment on account of domestic problem and suffered from insomnia and headache which is not supported by any material. Therefore, the presumption drawn by the learned Single Judge is that the respondent had no ailment at the time of recruitment specially in view of the fact that if such an ailment was there, that could have been detected at the first instance in course of requirement test or in course of medical test which was conducted during the 9 years of service career. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the said observation of the learned Single Judge is contrary to the medical report and the Rules. Therefore, the rejection of the claim of the respondent in granting disability pension was perfectly legal and valid. The appellate authority has not examined the case on merit to reject the same on the ground that the appeal is barred by limitation. That has been overlooked by the learned Singe Judge and held that the rejection of the claim of the respondent on technical ground that it is barred by limitation is not correct which approach of the learned Single Judge is erroneous. Therefore, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be aside.

(3.) We have examined legal contentions urged by the learned Addl. Central Government Counsel appearing for the appellant and we have also perused the order. We are not in agreement with the legal contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant for the reason that learned Single Judge has elaborately adverted to the facts of the case, right from the date of recruitment of the respondent in the services of Army and he has served the Army from 1980 to 1982 at Delhi and thereafter he was posted at Pathankot in the district of Jammu and Kashmir. While serving at Pathankot, the respondent was subjected to terrible stress and strain and on 7.12.1983, he developed ailments and was admitted to the Psychiatric Ward at 167 Military Hospital, Pathankot. After preliminary treatment, he was discharged on 2.1.1984 and was advised for four weeks rest. The respondent resumed his service and as per the advice of the doctor, he attended the Military Hospital, Pathankot as an out-door patient and he was attending the hospital for about a year. Thereafter, he was re-posted to E.M.E. Department Battalion. While he was serving in the said Battalion, he was discharged from service on the ground that he belonged to permanent low medical category and he was serviced with discharge certificate with a note that he is only fit for civil employment. On the basis of the said order, he has filed application for disability pension before the appellant. The same was rejected by the original authority and appellate authority. Being aggrieved of the same, he has approached this Court by filing writ petition challenging the correctness of the said orders urging various grounds. After adverting to the relevant facts and medical report submitted by the Medical Board, learned Single Judge has held that the discharge of the respondent from service is on account of mental ailments acquired during the course of employment in the Army at Pathankot. On the basis of the materials produced, learned Single Judge recorded the finding with valid reasons stating that the respondent is entitled for disability pension. The said findings of the learned Single Judge cannot be annulled in the absence of any material produced on behalf of the appellant to show that he had acquired disability during and in the course of his employment in the Army. We do not find any good reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge.