KRIPAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by this petition seeks to challenge the orders, Annexure-5 and 8, whereby the petitioner's request for grant of disability pension has been declined, and that order has been upheld. It is interalia also claimed, that the arrears of pension be awarded with consequential benefits including interest @ 12% p.a.

(2.) The necessary facts in brief, as alleged in the writ petition are, that the petitioner was enrolled on 28.8.1995, and inducted for training as Ambulance Assistant in the Army Medical Corps, and was sent for training. It is alleged that at the time of enrollment he was thoroughly examined for physical and medical fitness, by the Military Medical Officers, and was found fit in all respects, in the Medical Category AYE i.e. fit for all types of duties in Army Forces, both in peace and war, in all parts of world. It is then alleged, that in the very first spell of training the petitioner fell ill, and was admitted in Command Hospital, Lucknow on 6.9.1995, where he continued to remain as indoor patient, and was diagnosed as a case of Schizophrenia, and his medical category was lowered down to category EEE, and was thus invalidated out on 1.2.1996, and was sent to home with two escorts. Discharge Slip has been produced as Annexure-1. According to the petitioner the disability was assessed at 60%, and in the Discharge Certificate it is clearly indicated, that he was invalidated out from service under the Army Service Rule Rule 13(3)(iv), due to Schizophrenia, and the papers were sent for disability pension claim. The Discharge Certificate has been produced as Annexure-2. However, in the meantime he was paid the amounts payable under the Army Group Insurance Scheme vide Annexure-4.

(3.) The petitioner has then alleged, that vide Annexure-5 dt. 15.2.1997, he was intimated, that his disability pension claim has been decided, and it was found, that the disability from which the petitioner suffered during the service in the Army, and on which his claim is based on; (a) is not attributable to Military Service, and (b) does not fulfill the condition viz. that it existed before and has remained aggravated. Thus, the petitioner was not found entitled to disability pension. Against this order he filed appeal, and the same has been rejected vide Annexure-8, dt. 17.12.1999. This appeal was rejected on the ground, that the disability, on account of which the petitioner was discharged from service, is a Constitutional Disorder, and that, from perusal of the medical documents it was found, that there was no close time relationship with onset of illness and exposure to High Altitude Area/Field Service, and that, there was no other relevant service related stress in evidence. It was also found that it has been recorded by the medical authorities, that disability is neither attributable, to nor aggravated by duties of military service. The petitioner, however, thereafter again submitted yet another representation, after more than four years, i.e. 29.3.2004, contending that there has been no history of any such ailment in his genealogy, and hence it cannot be said to be a Constitutional Disorder, and therefore, requested to reconsider the matter. This representation was rejected, and the conclusion was communicated to the petitioner vide Annexure-9, pointing out passing of the orders Annexure-5 and 8. On these factual averments, the above reliefs have been claimed.