NIHAL Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Solicitor General for the Army.

(2.) The dispute lies in a very narrow compass. The appellant Nihal was a young boy who had been selected for training in the Army Engineering College after having completed Intermediate. He had undergone one year's training as required in the Officers' Training Centre, Gaya and then, for further studies and training, was transferred to Military Engineering College, Kirkee at Pune. There he suffered with severe illness, later diagnosed as meningo-incephalitis. He was hospitalized. He recovered. But subsequently, he had severe seizures which required further hospitalization.

(3.) The case of the appellant is that though he was required to take rest in the post recovery period, that was not taken care of and in the name of military discipline, he was forced to undergo training. This led to certain disputes between him and allegedly his seniors. It is his apprehension that it is because of that, he had been victimised and ultimately ordered to be medically discharged. He had appealed without success. To the part of the allegation that there were serious differences between him and the seniors, we have no doubt. But the question is whether it is that which motivated and/or actuated the appellant to be discharged on medial ground. Keeping in view the career of young cadet, we have summoned the entire original records and we have perused the same. We note that the responsible officers have reviewed the entire medical history and being specialist (Neurologist), have come clearly to the opinion that because of his early ailment which he is completely cured, he is fit for all civilian works or civilian employment but would be a risk in Army. To use the expression of the specialist as he is a cadet, the same is not commensurate with the training, he used to undergo and is being recommended for invalidation from service in medical category P5 for the same. In other words, for normal life, the appellant suffers no disability but for working in defence services, he may pose potentiality not commensurate to the service.