GURMUKH SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on April 1, 1989 after being found physically fit by the Medical Board. He was put in medical category 'aaa' and was deputed to serve in the 8th Battalion of the Sikh Light Infantory on February II, 1990 and was posted in the forward area of Jammu and Kashmir. While so posted, the petitioner developed some problems in his right arm, right leg and the right side of the head. He was accordingly examined in the 166 Military Hospital, Jammu and remained admitted therein from July 25, 1990 to August 13, 1990. He was thereafter referred to the Command Hospital, Udhamur for better treatment and remained admitted therefrom November 20, 1990 to January 22, 1991 and after a short period of discharge, was re-admitted in the said hospital from February 7, 1991 to March 9, 1991. He was thereafter referred to the Army Hospital at Delhi but as there was no improvement in his medical condition, he was boarded out of service on September 14, 1995 with his disease diagnosied as Neurosis, which had led to his medical categorisation 'eee' with disability assessed at 40%. a copy of the discharge certificate has been appended as Annexure P-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner's claim for disability pension was submitted to the CCDA (P) Allahabad by the Record Office of the Sikh L. I. on January 10, 1996 but was rejected on July 9, 1996 on the ground that the disability which had led to the petitioner's invalidment was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. The decision of the authority was conveyed to the petitioner with an advice to prefer an appeal, if so desired, by January 8, 1997. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal, as advised, but this too was rejected vide Annexure P-2 dated January 29, 1998 on the ground that the Invaliding Medical Board had found that the petitioner's disease was a constitutional disorder and not connected with military service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

(2.) On notice of motion, the respondents have filed their written statement and the broad facts have not been denied. It has been pleaded that the petitioner was found to be suffering from 'neurosis' on November 21, 1990 and as the treatment given to him in various hospitals had not yielded any result, he had been invalided out of service on September 14, 1995. It has also been submitted that the petitioner's claim for disability pension, which had been submitted by the Record Office of the Sikh LI, had been rejected on the ground that the disability that had led to the petitioner's discharge was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. It has also been pleaded that the 'neurosis' was a constitutional disorder as per the opinion of the Invaliding Medical Board recorded on August 22, 1995 and could not have been caused by stress and strain of military service.

(3.) Mr. Jaswal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged only one point before me. He has pointed out that as per Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'regulations'), any individual, who had been invalided out of service on account of a disability, which was attributable to or aggravated by military service and assessed at 20% or more was entitled to the payment of disability pension. He has also referred to Regulation 14 (b) which stipulated that the disease, which had led to an individual's discharge from service would ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service, if no note of it had been made at the time of the individual's acceptance for military service, unless medical opinion held for reasons to be stated that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior to acceptance for military service. Relying upon these Regulations, Mr. Jaswal has pointed out that it was the admitted case that the petitioner had been found medically fit at the time of his enrolment in the Sikh L. I. and it was after several years that it was noted that he was suffering from 'neurosis. ' It has also been submitted that as the Invaliding Medical Board had found that the petitioner was suffering from 40% disability, the conditions for the applicability of Regulation 173 and 14 (b) were fully satisfied.