BALWAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner through the medium of present writ petition is seeking disability pension on the ground of his invalidation from service having been found medically unfit.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was enrolled in the army on 4th of Dec' 1973 and after rendering three years and eleven days of service, he was discharged from service in medical category CEE(PMT). It is stated that after completion of initial training, the petitioner was posted in Kerala at Pangore Kanya Kumari. In the year 1976, when the petitioner was posted at Tang Dhar area of Srinagar, which is situated at a high altitutde, his body could not adapt the climatic conditions and as a result, he suffered from mental disorder. The petitioner remained under treatment for some time and was ultimately shifted to Army Hospital, Badami Bagh, Srinagar. As the condition of the petitioner did not improve, a medical board was held at 92 Base Hospital, Srinagar. His disability namely "personality disorder" was assessed at 60% and he having been placed in medical category aforementioned was boarded out of service being-unfit.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that at the time of his enrolment in the army, he was not suffering from any such disease and it was only after three years of his active service, that he developed the said disease due to hazards of army service. It is stated that as the disease from which he suffered and which led to his discharge from service was attributable to and aggravated by military service and the same was assessed at 60%, the petitioner was entitled to get the disability pension but the same was wrongly denied to him. Reliance in this regard is being placed on Regulation 173 of Army Pension Regulations, 1961. It is stated that in terms of the said Regulation, in case, the disability of an army personnel is assessed at 20% or more and is found attributable to army service, then, the said army personnel is entitled to get the disability pension. It is thus stated that the respondent Union of India rejected the claim of the petitioner for the said benefit in ignorance of the rules governing the field.