NARESH CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Naresh Chand, petitioner, has filed the petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India and he has prayed that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued by quashing the order, Annexure P-3, passed by respondent No. 3, vide which the claim of the petitioner for grant of disability pension has been rejected. According to the petitioner, these orders are illegal, ultra vires, void, arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. The petitioner has further sought the direction that respondents be directed to grant him the benefit of disability pension from the date of his discharge from the army service, besides interest.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner is that his date of birth is 25.9.1972. He was enrolled in the army on 28.8.1992. He was invalidated out of service on 29.1.1995 when he was placed in medical category "EEE". He was boarded out from the service on the ground that he was suffering from permanent disability of "Generalised Seizure". The petitioner made several representations to the respondents for the grant of disability pension but vide order dated 17.1.1996, the petitioner was informed that his case for grant of disability pension is under consideration. The hopes of the petitioner dashed to the ground when on 24.2.1996, he received an intimation from respondent No. 3 that his case for disability pension has been rejected because the disability "Generalised Seizure" is neither attributable to the army service nor it aggravated by the military service. The petitioner preferred an appeal on 14.3.1996 but to no effect. He sent a reminder. Hence the present writ petition.

(3.) Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents who filed the reply and denied the allegations. According to the respondents, the disability "Generalized Seizure-345" of the petitioner was considered by the duly constituted Board of Doctors and they gave the opinion that this disease was neither attributable nor aggravated to the military service because the disease was organic in nature and had no concern with the service. Respondents, however, admits one thing that the disability of the petitioner was assessed at 20%.