DWARKA NATH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was found to be suffering from Neurosis (Hysterical reaction). His disability was fixed at 30 percent. Such is the stand taken by the petitioner in para 6 of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, when he joined the army service, he was not found suffering from any such disease by the concerned authorities. It is submitted by the petitioner that he was directed by the authorities to take rest. It was in June 88, the petitioner was informed that he stands discharged from service on medical grounds. His case was forwarded to the office of Controller of Defence Accounts, Pension, Allahabad, for grant of disability pension. This was declined vide communication, Annexure -B, passed on 24th Jan. 89. It has been mentioned that the disability suffered by the petitioner is neither attributable nor aggravated by military services. It is against this action of respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court. It is submitted by him that he is entitled to get disability pension. Petition stands admitted. Counter has been filed. The legal position be now noticed.

(2.) A Division Bench of this Court in the case reported as Union of India v. Rattan Lal, (1999) 2 SCT 39 : (1999 Lab IC 2721) 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 that 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 of service. Therefore, from the judicial precedents referred to above, it can safely be concluded: (i) that in case mention is not made regarding the disease or disablement at the time of entry in service, then it is to be presumed that the disability occurred during the course of service. (ii) that disability would be on account of stress and strains of army service. (iii) if competent authority is to disagree with the finding recorded by the medical board vis -a -vis the disability or the percentage thereof, the matter should be referred to the Medical Board. (iv) 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. (v) delay in approaching the Court is irrelevant.

(3.) AGAIN in Pritam Singh v. Union of India, (2000) 2 SCT 862 (J and K) the writ petitioner was discharged after seven years of service. This was on the ground of Schizophrenic Psychosis Catatoic disorder. The disability was determined at 30 percent but actual grant of disability pension was denied. Taking note of a decision given by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Balwant Singh v. Union of India, LPA No. 521/98, decided on 17th Nov 99, and some other decisions the petitioner was held entitled to disability pension. What was observed in paragraphs 6 of the judgment in Pritam Singh 's case (supra) is being reproduced below: - ''The Karnataka High Court in the case of Ex Naik M. S. Pemmaiah v. Union of India, 1998 (3) SCT 755, had allowed the disability pension where the concerned employee was suffering from Schizophrenia. In the aforementioned decision, the reasoning given is that if a person was not suffering from the disease when he joined the service and when there was no entry that the person was suffering from disorder or disability then it is to be presumed that the disease had occurred on account of stress and strain of army service and the same is attributable to military service. The petitioner is accordingly held entitled to pension.