N K SADHU SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was enrolled in the India Army on July 17, 1970, was discharged on May 10, 1980 on medical grounds. His claim for the grant of disability pension having been rejected by the respondents, he has approached this Court through the present writ petition. In the writ petition even a prayer for the grant of regular pension by condoning "the short fall of 67 days", had also been made. However, in view of the rejection of this prayer by the Motion Bench vide order dated January 15, 1992, the claim in respect of grant of disability pension only has been pressed at the time of arguments. Facts as relevant for this limited relief may be briefly noticed.

(2.) THE petitioner avers that he was a heavy weight boxer and had won the Eastern Command Boxing Championship. In 1978 he was sent for practice at Fort Williams, Calcutta to participate in the National Boxing Championship. For this purpose, the petitioner was temporarily attached to the Gorkha Regiment at Fort Williams. On December 22, 1978 during the course of training "he got severe blow" As a result, he got acute pain in the left side of his chest with intense burning sensation in the pericaridium. This was accompanied by feeling of heaviness in "his whole body.....". He was checked up at the M.I. Room and ultimately admitted in the Command Hospital. The petitioner was given treatment in different Hospitals. Ultimately, he was sent to the Mental Hospital. He was placed in Medical category 'CEE'. He was shifted to the Command Hospital, Pune and was placed in medical category "EEE". On May 10, 1980, he was discharged from service with the final diagnosis of "Affective Psychosis (MDP) (Bipolar Type)". After his discharge from the Army the petitioner represented to the Army authorities for the grant of disability pension but his claim was declined. Appeal filed by his wife was also rejected. The applications submitted by the father of the petitioner to the Army Authorities also met with the same fate. Ultimately, the petitioner has approached this Court and claims that he is entitled to the grant of disability pension in accordance with the Pension Regulations.

(3.) I have heard Mr. S.S. Bajwa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Joginder Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents.