THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF DEFENCE TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI, Vs. SHRI SHAMSHER SINGH, S/O SH. KEHAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BADHAMNA POST OFFICE NARI, TEHSIL AMB, DISTT. UNA, H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question involved in this appeal is whether the respondent is entitled to disability pension as held by the learned Single Judge or not.

(2.) THE respondent was enrolled in the Indian Army as a Sepoy on 23rd November, 1973. On 21st January, 1995, he was directed to appear before the Medical Board and the Medical Board categorized his disease in the category "EEE" (PSY). On this ground he was discharged from the Indian Army. His claim for disability pension was rejected on the ground that the disease is not attributable to nor aggravated by the army service. According to the appellants, this was a constitutional disorder. Division Bench of this Court in Santosh Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors., Latest, HLJ 2007(HP) 329 has dealt in detail with the case law relating to grant of disability pension under Rule 173 of the Army Pension Regulations. After analysis of the entire law, the Division Bench held as follows: -

(3.) IN the present case, the proceedings of the Medical Board have been attached to Annexure R -2. It has been clearly stated that the petitioner was not suffering from disease/disability prior to enrolment in the Indian Army. It has also clearly been recorded by the Medical Board itself that the disability/disease was not attributable nor aggravated by the negligence or misconduct of the serviceman. The disease has been diagnosed 4 as "Affective Psychosis" and has been assessed as 30% disability. The Medical Board has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to further treatment and it is most important to note that the Medical Board itself recommended that the disability pension should be granted, if allowed by the Medical Authority. This opinion of the Medical Board as already held by the Apex Court in number of cases cannot be brushed aside either by this Court or by the Medical Authority attached to the CDPO. No doubt, the Medical Authority attached to the CDPO can take a different view but obviously such view can be taken only after examining the records and if necessary the patient himself. Furthermore, in case the Medical Authority attached to the office of the CDPO wants to differ from the opinion of the Medical Board, it must give some reasons for this. In this case no reasons were given.