PALWINDER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this civil writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has given challenge to the orders An-nexures P2 and P7 vide which his claim for disability pension was declined.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner is that he was enrolled in the Army service on 16.4.1986 after having been found medically fit. After successful initial military training he was inducted into 7 Sikh Regiment. He was posted at various places. Thereafter he was discharged from the military service on account of disability with effect from 30.4.1996. He further submitted that he was found suffering from CNS Seizure (disease like epilepsy); SN Hearing loss and Unspecified Psychosis and on each count his disability was assessed at 20% i.e. composite disability at 60% for a period of two years. He filed an appeal and that has been disposed of vide order Annexure P7 in which it was observed by the Appellate Authority that so far as the disability falling under head Nos. 1 and 3 is concerned, it is not attributable to the Army service and so far as the disability falling under head No. 2 is concerned, though it is attributable to the Army service but the percentage of the disability has been viewed at 11-14%, i.e. less than 20%. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of disability pension on any count. The petitioner has challenged the orders Annexures P2 and P7.

(3.) Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. According to the respondents, the disability suffered by the petitioner is not attributable to the Army service nor it is aggravated in the Army service and so far as the disability of hearing is concerned, it is less than 20% and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit. It was also pleaded that out of his total service 10 years, the petitioner remained admitted in the hospital from 29.10.1990 to 19.4.1996. Since most of the time he had spent in the hospital and had very less chance to serve as an active soldier, therefore, the onus is heavy upon the petitioner to establish that the disability suffered by him is attributable to the Army service. With this broad defence the respondents have prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.