SHASHI KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has been denied disability pension. He has approached this court. The disability from which the petitioner came to suffer has been indicated as generalised tonic clonic seizure 345. The disability has been assessed at 30%.

(2.) THE stand taken by the respondent is that the petitioner is not entitled to disability pension as the disease from which the petitioner came to suffer is no! attributable to army service. in para 8 of the reply filed by the respondents it is slated that the claim of the petitioner for disability pension was forwarded to the office of chief controller of defence account (pension) at allahabad and this office has rejected the claim of the pelitioner. The reason given as indicated above is that the disease is constitutional and is not attributable or aggravated by (Sic).

(3.) THE position of law is well settled that in case mention is not made of a disease at the time of entry of a person into service then the disease in question which leads to discharge of the person consented from service would be deemed to have occurred on account of hazards of army service. A Division Bench of this court in the case reported as union of india versus rattan lal, 1999(2) SCT 39, considered this question in detail. After taking note of the various decisions on the subject, on page 43 the division bench concluded as under. "In the present case there is nothing on the record to indicate the writ petitioner respondent was suffering from the ailment at the time of entry into service. It is also not the case of the appellant union of India that the ailment was such which could not be detected at the time of entry into service. Therefore from the judicial precedents referred to above it can safely be concluded. (1) that the in case mention is not made regarding the disease or dissabelement at the time of entery in service then it is to be presumed that the disability occurred during the coures of service. (2) That disability would be on account of stress and strains of army service. (3) If competent authority is to disagree with the finding recorded by the medical bord vis -a -vis the disability or the precentage thereof, the matter should be referred to the medical board. (4) As there is no finding recorded that the respondent writ petitioner was suffering from a disease which could not be detected at the time of entry into service, the appellant union of India cannot take a summersault and come to a contrary conclusion. (5) Delay in approaching the court is irrelevant". In Ram Niwas Goswami Versus union of India 2000(2) SCT 490 the petitioner who was serving in Air Force was discharged from service on medical grounds. He was not paid the disability pension. There was no evidence on the record to show that the petitioner was siffering from any ailment at the time of his recruitment or prior there to The disease from which he suffered was diagnosed after five years of enrolment. The petitioner in the above case was held entitled to disability pension.