BABU RAM Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was enrolled in Army (Signal Corps) on 08.02.1949. He was invalided out on 14.07.1953 on medical grounds. The Medical Board, according to the petitioner, declared him as a case of Schizophrenia, assessed his disability as 100%, and placed him in a Medical Category EEE. He, immediately after was boarded out, approached respondents with an application for grant of disability pension. However, the respondents avoided to take any decision on his application and the representations filed from time to time till the petitioner was constrained to invoke through medium of petition on hand, writ jurisdiction of this Court. He seeks a Writ of Mandamus commanding respondents to grant him disability pension with effect from 14.07.1953 with interest @ 24% per annum and to conduct re-survey Medical Board to assess his disability as on date.

(2.) Petitioners case is that he was hail and healthy, free from any disability or disease at the time of his enrolment in Army and was, therefore, placed in Category AYE by the Medical Board that examined him at the time of his enrolment. He insists that the disease Schizophrenia detected more than five years after he was enrolled, was clearly attributable to and aggravated by the Military Service. Petitioner, in the body of the petition, has referred to the Army Pension Regulations and in particular Regulation 173 to reinforce his claim for disability pension. Paras 4 to 53 refer to the representations made by the petitioner from time to time between 14.10.1953 to 15.03.2002, to the respondents requesting for grant of disability pension and highlighting the grounds in support of such claim. He has appended copies of the representations as Annexures B to A-2 with the petition.

(3.) The respondents oppose the writ petition on the ground of inordinate and explicable delay. It is pointed out that a cause to ask for disability pension accrued to the petitioner on 14.07.1953 and the petitioner knocked at the door of justice after 50 long years. It is stated that petitioners service record has been destroyed in accordance with Regulation 595 of the Army Regulations and his claim, therefore, cannot be verified on the record. It is disputed that the petitioner rendered pensionable service within meaning of Regulation 132 of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961 (Part I).