UADIBEER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The entitlement of the petitioner, who has been discharged from Assam Rifles Service on medical grounds, to invalid pension or disability pension, is the subject-matter of this writ petition.

(2.) The facts of the case are not in dispute. The petitioner was enrolled as a General Duty recruit in the Assam Rifles on 24.10.1993, and was allotted regimental No. 163840 in the Medical Category of "AAA". On completion of basic training, he was posted to 16 Assam Rifles. The onset of Psychosis has occurred in August 1997 while he was on 30 days' leave. He had consulted a Psychiatrist at Aligarh who diagnosed him as a case of acute psychosis. He further availed of 78 days' of extraordinary leave from 18.8.1997 to 4.12.1997, and was treated at LGB Institute of Mental Health as a case of Schizophrenia where he was managed with Anti-Psychosis medication and was accordingly advised for maintenance therapy in March 1998. Even after this, there was apparently no marked improvement and he continued to display abnormal behaviour. He was thereafter referred to 155 Base Hospital for Psychiatric Evaluation in January 1999 where he was diagnosed with ECT and anti-psychosis. On 5.12.2000, he deserted his Unit and returned on 3.3.2001 on his own accord. It also led to his abstention from medication. He was referred to a Psychiatrist at 155 Base Hospital for abnormal behaviour. Psychiatric Evaluation revealed non-communicative poverty of speech, ideas, derailment of thought and impaired judgment. He was observed to be closing his ears with cotton plugs to stop auditory hallucinations. The response to his treatment with anti-psychotics and ECT was found to be poor and minimal. He was, thus, diagnosed as a case of schizophrenia and his illness had taken a chronic course with progressive deficit causing marked impairment due to which he was unable to discharge his duties as a soldier. He was accordingly advised by a duly constituted Release Medical Board to be released from service in category CEE (Permanent). Consequently, he was discharged from service on medical ground after rendering only nine years, six months and six days of service, which is short of the minimum qualifying service of 10 years for invalid pension. He was earlier awarded 28 days of rigorous imprisonment with effect from 12.8.1996 to 8.9.1996 and another rigorous imprisonment of 28 days from 2.12.1996 to 29.12.1996.

(3.) The contention of Mr. R. Jha, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that though the petitioner did not complete ten years of service, he is nevertheless entitled to invalid pension as provided for in Rule 38 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 ('Pension Rules'), which is applicable to the Assam Rifles personnel. According to the learned Counsel, unlike other pensions, there is no qualifying service in the case of invalid pension: the plain language of the rule rules out an interpretation to the contrary. Alternatively, he submits that the disease of schizophrenia suffered by the petitioner being triggered by the harsh and tough conditions of service in the eastern sectors of the country, there is contributory negligence of the respondent authorities in aggravating the disease during the course of his service: his disability is, thus, attributable to and aggravated by the service conditions. Thus, according to the learned Counsel, the petitioner is entitled to disability pension. Lastly, he contends that the petitioner is entitled to protection under the provisions of Section 47 of the Persons with the Disabilities Act, 1995, and ought to have been shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits or kept on supernumerary post until a suitable post was available or he attained the age of superannuation, whichever was earlier. On the other hand, Mr. S.C. Shyam, the learned CGC, submits that Rule 38 of the Pension Rules shall have to be read with Rule 49(1)(c) of the Pension Rules and cannot be read in isolation, and so read, it becomes clear that unless the petitioner completes a qualifying service of 10 years, he cannot claim invalid pension. He further contends that once the Release Medical Board, which is an expert body, has opined that the disease of the petitioner was not attributable to or aggravated by the military service, this Court would not be justified in coming to a different conclusion and proceed to hold that the petitioner is entitled to disability pension. He strongly relies on the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Keshar Singh, 2007 12 SCC 675 in support of his contention. He also draws my attention to the Gazette Notification dated 10.9.2002 issued by the Ministry of Social Welfare and Empowerment under the proviso to Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and points out that the Central Government has exempted all categories of posts of "combatant personnel" of Assam Rifles from the provisions of the said Act. He, therefore, maintains that the writ petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.