MANJEET SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was boarded out of the Army on account of low medical category, which was determined by the Medical Board. The Medical Board had found that the petitioner was suffering from Generalised Tonic Clonic Seizure and Neurotic Depression diseases which were both found invalidating disabilities. He was found not to be entitled to the disability pension as per para 173 of pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part -1). Both these disabilities were neither attributable to nor aggravated by the military service. He was accordingly discharged from the Army service on the medical grounds under the Army Rule 13(3) item III (v) read with Sub Rule 2 A of 1954 w.e.f. 31.12.2001 (AN) and his order of discharge was finally approved on 01.01.2002. It is this order which has been questioned by the petitioner in this writ petition.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner came to be appointed on 6.4.1999 after having been declared fit by the Medical Board and was categorized as AYE. During the tenure of his service in the army, he was referred to Command Hospital, Chandimandir on 29.5.2000, where on scrutiny by the Medical Board his medical category was lowered down from AYE to CEE. The Release Medical Board of the petitioner was held at Military Hospital, Jabalpur on 8.10.2001, who assessed his disability Generalised Tonic Clonic Seizure at 20% for two years, disability Neurotic Depression at 11 -14% for two years and composite assessment of both the disabilities were assessed above 20% for two years. The Board in its opinion found that both the disabilities are constitutional in nature, hence unconnected with the military service.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner states that disabilities of the petitioner found by the Medical Board were attributable to his military service. He had incurred this disability on account of stress and strain involved in the army service. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to disability pension in terms of pension Regulation 173 of the Army Rules. The other contention of the petitioner is that he is also entitled to shelter appointment in the Army.