EX-NAIK PRITAM SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ex -Naik Pritam Singh has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Union of India for the issuance of a writ or direction to respondent to grant him the benefit of disability pension as he -has suffered the disability when he was serving the army in terms of paragraph 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that petitioner was enrolled in the army as Driver on 23.12.1975. In June, 1990 the petitioner was detailed on a convoy duty as driver of a vehicle which was going to Leh and Upshi -Manali road for winter stocking of ration and stores for troops. The convoy halted for night at Parso in high altitude. The petitioner at nigh suddenly became unconscious. He was given emergency medical treatment. He regained consciousness after half an hour. Next day he was evacuated to Pathankot where he was admitted in the military hospital. The petitioner was evacuated to Army Hospital, Delhi where the brain surgery was done. In January 1991, the petitioner was placed in low medical category "CEE" temporary for 6/12 months. In the month of September, 1991, the petitioner was medically examined by the Medical Board and again the petitioner was placed in low medical category "CEE" (Physical) temporary for six months. In the month of May, 1992 another medical board was constituted which examined the petitioner and he was placed in low medical category "CEE" permanent. In the month of December, 1995 on ac -count of his permanent medical category, the petitioner was discharged from the army and his disability was assessed at 35 per cent. The petitioner's claim is that he is entitled to disability pension because he was boarded out from the service when he was serving the army and the disease is attributable to his army service. The petitioner further alleges that CCDA (Pension) vide letter dated 20,9.1996 intimated him regarding the rejection of his disability pension as per Annexure P -1. He filed an appeal in October 1996 and the appeal was also dismissed in December 1999 vide Annexure P -3. In this manner, the petitioner has sought quashment of the orders Annexures P -1 and P -3 and has prayed for the release of the disability pension.

(3.) Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondent which filed the written statement anti denied the allegations. The stand taken up by the respondent is that the petitioner was not boarded out from service on account of medical unfitness but the petitioner had completed the contractual terms of 20 years in the year 1995 and, therefore, he has been discharged. It is a case of simple discharge from the army and in these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to disability pension. Moreover, the disease suffered by the petitioner is not aggravated or attributable to the army service. Rather it is constitutional.