HARJAP SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Harjap Singh has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking directions of this Court against the respondents to grant him disability pension along with interest @ 18% per annum.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner is that he was enrolled in the Army on 28.4.1979 and at that time he was found medically fit and was placed in category 'A'. In the year 1986 medical problem started with him when he was posted at Kapoopah (near Sikkim) in the high altitude area which is around 28000 to 30000 feet above the sea level. The oxygen in that area is very less. He started getting fits and his medical category was reduced in February 1988 to 'C'. Then his unit moved to peace area at Meerut, where his medical category was reduced to permanent 'B'. The Medical Board held its proceedings on 29.8.1988 and he was found suffering from fits which was his principal disability. The other disability declared was Neurosis Hysterical Reaction. He was discharged from the service on 1.1.1996 under Army Rule 13(3) read with Army Rule 13(A) before the completion of terms of engagement being placed in medical category 'B'. He was medically boarded out on the ground of 20% disability/mental disorder i.e. Neurosis Hysterical Reaction. He further alleged that his total service to the Army was 16 years out of which he served 9 years and 8 months at high altitude. In the year 1990 he was admitted to Psychiatry Ward of Base Hospital and was diagnosed as a case of Neurosis Hysterical Reaction. He was declared unfit to handle arms and ammunition. In the year 1992 he was also admitted to Psychiatry Ward of Command Hospital, Lucknow. He was finally invalidated from service on medical ground on 1.1.1996. He applied for disability pension and his case was sent to CCDA(P), Allahabad, but the same was rejected on 3.3.1996. He filed an appeal which also met the same fate. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents, who filed the reply and denied the allegations. According to them, the disability suffered by the petitioner was constitutional one and is not attributable or aggravated to Army service.