Amarjit Singh vs Union of India

R.L. Anand, J.—Petitioner Amarjit Singh has filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India and has prayed that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued for quashing the letter dated 4.12.1997 Annexure P1, issued by respondent No. 4, vide which his claim for disability pension was rejected. He has further made a prayer that writ of mandamus be issued against the respondents directing them to release him the benefit of disability pension along with interest.

The case set up by the petitioner is that he was enrolled in the Army on 7.3.1977 and was invalidated out of Army service on account of disability i.e. acute intestinal obstruction on 15.10.1979. He made a representation on 12.8.1989 to the respondent-authorities for grant of disability pension but nothing was heard by the petitioner from the said of the respondents. He made another representation on 4.11.1997 and finally on 4.12.1997 he was informed that his prayer for disability pension has been declined. The main grouse of the petitioner is that the disability suffered by him is attributable to Army service and, therefore, he is entitled to disability pension.

Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents, who filed the reply and denied the allegations. The stand taken up by the respondents is that the disease suffered by the petitioner is a constitutional one and it is not connected with the Army service, therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of disability pension.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of this case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of enrolment of the petitioner in Army he was found hale and hearty and was placed in medical category A. No defect of any nature was noticed by the medical board which examined the petitioner at the time of recruitment. The petitioner has suffered the disease on account of stress and strain when he was serving the Army. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the disease in question suffered by the petitioner is not attributable to Army service. Moreover, the disability suffered by him is less than 20 per cent and, therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of disability pension.

I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and am of the opinion that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondents must be repelled. Annexure P1 is the document which shows that the petitioner was invalidated out of service on account of the disability i.e. acute intestinal obstruction. There is nothing to indicate in Annexure P1 that the disability suffered by the petitioner was less than 20 per cent. Later on the medical board of the respondent-authorities assessed the disability less than 20 percent without any basis. The learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to show that at the time of admission of the petitioner in the Army he was suffering from any disease of the kind now depicted by the petitioner. In these circumstances, I hold that the petitioner suffered the disability while he was serving the Army and he is entitled to the benefit of disability pension fora limited period of 38 months prior to the filing of the writ petition because he was boarded out from the Army in the year 1979 and he gave first notice after a lapse of 10 years and second after a lapse of 8 years therafter. The benefit of disability pension shall be released by the respondent-authorities within three months from the receipt of the copy of this order failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ I per cent per annum. The petitioner shall appear before the Re-survey. Medical Board as and when called upon by the respondents.

Petition allowed