LAWS(J&K)-1998-12-16

RACHPAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On December 31, 1998
RACHPAL SINGH Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Officer Commanding of the Unit made a recommendation in favour of the petitioner This was to the effect that he is entitled to disability pension. The Controller of Defence Accounts at Allahabad, however, formed an opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the disability pension. An opinion stand expressed that the disability which resulted in the invalidment of the petitioner was not attributable to military service. The petitioner represented against this, Finally, in May 1997, the petitioner was informed that the disability (EEEâ„¢ due to NEOROSIS HYSTERICAL REACTION 300 -V -67" is not attributable to army service, it was also indicated that this malady was not aggravated by Military service. On receiving this communication, the petitioner approached this court.

(2.) THE writ petition stands admitted. A counsel appeared for the Union of India, Six weeks time was sought for filling of counter. Counter has not been filed.

(3.) THE petitioner submits that in the month of November/December 1980, the Unit of the petitioner was deputed to carry on routine army exercises at Pokhran in the State of Rajasthan. After completing the exercises men of the Unit were returning. They were traveling in a train. At that point of time the trains door hit him in the head. This is how he received a head injury The wound was stitched. Six stitches were administered. Notwithstanding the above treatment the petitioner would develop high temperature. This was accompanied by pain in cerebral region of the petitioner. The petitioner was examined at the Military hospital He was placed in category described as CAT (B). The malady from which the petitioner was suffering was indicated as permanent disable as category EEE due to NEROSTS (HYSTERICAL REACTION) 300 -V -67", He was invalidated out of service As indicated above, even though the Commanding Officer of the petitioner made a recommendation in favour of the petitioner, yet the Controller of Defence Accounts has formed a view to the contrary.