VIR YAGYA DUTT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Vir Yagya Dutt, Ex -Gunner, has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/ of the Constitution of India vide which it has been prayed by the petitioner that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued in his favour against the respondents who have rejected his case of disability pension on the ground that the disease suffered by him is a con - situational one and the petitioner has further made a prayer that directions be issued to the respondents to release the benefit of disability pension to him from the date when he was discharged from the army.

(2.) THE case set up by the petitioner is that he was enrolled in the army as Gunner on 22.9.1991. At the time of enrolment, he was medically checked and found fit in all respects. After getting training the petitioner was posted in 144 Composite Regiment. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted in 148 Right AD Regiment. On 23.12.1986 the sitting of the Medical Board was held in respect of the petitioner at Command Hospital, Chandigarh, and the petitioner was categorised in low medical category "EEE": with 50% disability. Thereafter, the medical papers were sent to CCDA (P) Allahabad, for grant of disability pension. On 23.6.1987 the claim of the petitioner for grant of disability pension was rejected. The petitioner made a prayer for the supply of medical papers to enable him to file an appeal but he was informed that the papers could not be supplied to him being the medical documents. On 16.10.1987 he filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Government on 14.6.1988. The petitioner in another appeal filed before the President of India/Chief of Army Staff had pointed out that he had no family history of the disease namely diabetes and he even offered that his parents who were alive could be medically examined in this regard to verify the fact but his mercy petition was also dismissed on 23.3.1991. The same message was received by him in the month of September, 1991. The petitioner filed another appeal as advised to him by respondent No. 2, in the year 1996 but to, no effect. So much so, he served a legal notice in the month of December, 1998 and that too did not bring any relief to him. Hence the writ petition.

(3.) NOTICE of the writ petition was given to the respondents. They have filed the written statement and denied the allegations. The broad stand of the respondents is that the opinion of the Release Medical Board is final and that the High Court cannot substitute its own opinion to the one formulated by the Board. It is also the stand of the respondents that the disease suffered by the petitioner is not attributable to the army service. It has no connection with the duties which were performed by the petitioner. Since the disease was constitutional, it could not be noticed at the time of the entering of the petitioner into service, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit much less of disability pension. Finally, it was pleaded by the respondents that this writ is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.