Darshana Devi vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Nirmal Singh, J.—Husband of the appellant late Pritam Singh (here-in-after referred to as the deceased) joined Army service in the year

1974. After serving for about nine years, the deceased was invalidated out of service on medical grounds on 22nd of Feb'83. The disease from

which the deceased suffered was said to be Schizhophrenia and the disability was assessed at 50%. The deceased was placed in Medical category

CEE(P) and having declared as unfit to continue in service, he was as indicated above, invalidated out of service. After invalidation from service,

the deceased represented to the authorities concerned for grant of disability pension on the ground that the disease from which he suffered

occurred due to stress and strain of army service. The disability pension, however, was not sanctioned in his favour. The deceased thereafter died

in the year 1996. After the death of deceased, the appellant also represented to the authorities concerned for grant of disability pension w.e.f.

Feb'83 upto 7th of Nov'96 i.e. the date on which the husband of the appellant died but the respondents did not consider the request of the

appellant. The appellant thereafter preferred writ petition SWP No. 634/01, claiming disability pension on behalf of her husband w.e.f. 22nd of

Feb'83 upto 7th of Nov'96 and also sought family pension, which came to be dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide impugned

order dt. 8th of Dec'06. It is against this order, the present appeal has been preferred.

The respondent Union of India in the objections filed before the writ Court had pleaded that the deceased was enrolled in the army w.e.f. 26th

Feb'74. It was stated that when the symptoms of the invaliding disability manifested the deceased was treated in military hospitals and after

treatment he was placed in low medical category temporary (T) and was retained in service. On review of low medical category, the deceased

was placed in low medical category (Physical) (Permanent) and was asked about his willingness to continue in service. On the basis of the

unwillingness shown by the deceased, he was brought before the Release Medical Board and was discharged from service w.e.f. 23rd of Feb'83

under Army Rule 13(3) item (III) (v) after rendering 8 years 11 months and 25 days of army service. The disability of the deceased was assessed

at 50% for two years and the Medical Board had opined that the invaliding disability Investigation CNS (Seizure) V-72 for which the deceased

was to be discharged is neither attributable nor aggravated by military service. It was stated that the disability pension claim of the deceased was

forwarded to CDA(P) Allahabad vide office letter dt. 22nd Feb'83 and the same was rejected by CDA(P) Allahabad vide letter No.

03/83/20140/IV-839 dt. 15th April' 83. The respondent-Union of India also pleaded in the objections before the writ Court that as during the life

time, the deceased never approached any Court of law against the rejection of his claim for disability pension, therefore, the wife of the deceased

(appellant herein) has no right to approach the Court for grant of disability pension after 20 years of discharge from service of her husband. It was

further pleaded that the appellant is also not entitled to family pension.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the deceased while serving in the army was posted in the Field area of Jammu and

Kashmir and operational area of Binaguri. It is stated that due to extreme stress and strain of the army service while the deceased was posted in

operational area of Binaguri, he developed mental illness and was admitted in Military Hospital, Binaguri and thereafter was referred to Military

hospital Bag Dogra and was ultimately sent to Command hospital, Calcutta, where he remained under treatment in Psychiatric ward for about 9

months. The deceased was identified to be a case of ""Schizchoprenia' and was placed in medical category CEE(P) by the Medical Board held at

Command Hospital, Calcutta and his disability was assessed at 50%. The Release Medical Board gave its opinion and declared the deceased unfit

to be retained in military service. The deceased was thereafter transferred to Military hospital Binaguri in the year 1983 and ultimately invalidated

out of service on 22nd of Feb'83.

It is thus submitted that as the deceased was hale and hearty when he joined the service and was not suffering from any such disease and as

there was no mention of this fact that the deceased suffered from this disease at the time of his entry into service, the same would be deemed to

have been occurred due to stress and strains of army service, and therefore, the deceased was wrongly denied the disability pension. Reliance in

this regard has been placed on a judgment of this Court reported in 1998 2 SCT 228, Col. M.L. Sethi v. Union of India.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

The first question which needs to be considered is as to whether an army personnel who is invalidated out of service on medical grounds is

entitled to disability pension when no mention of the disease on account of which he is invalidated out, is made at the time of his entry into service

and as to whether the delay in approaching the Court is material. In this regard it would be apt to notice what was said by this Court in the case

reported as Union of India v. Rattan Lal 1999 2 SCT 39. The relevant observations at page 43 of the judgment are as under:

In the present case, there is nothing on the record to indicate that the writ petitioner-respondent was suffering from the ailment at the time of entry

into service. It is also not the case of the appellant-Union of India that the ailment was such which could not be detected at the time of entry to

service. Therefore, from the judicial precedents referred to above, it can safely be concluded:

(i) that in case mention is not made regarding the disease or disablement at the time of entry in service, then it is to be presumed that the disability

occurred during the course of service.

(ii) That disability would be on account of stress and strains of army service;

(iii) If competent authority is to disagree with the finding recorded by the medical board vis-'-vis the disability or the percentage thereof, the matter

should be referred to the Medical Board;

(iv) as there is no finding recorded that the respondent-writ petitioner was suffering from a disease which could not be detected at the time of entry

into service, the appellant-Union of India cannot take a summersault and come to a contrary conclusion.

(v) Delay in approaching the Court is irrelevant.

In the aforesaid case, the army personnel was suffering from hypermetropia. As there was no mention of this disease at the time of the entry of

the concerned army personnel into service, he was held entitled to disability pension.

In Anil Kumar Mishra v. Union of India 1996(3) SCT 778, the writ petitioner was medically fit at the time of his recruitment. Later in the course

of service, he developed some physical problem. The disability in the said case was held to be suffered on account of stress and strains of military

service and during the course of service. It was observed that in case no mention is made regarding disability at the time of enrolment in service,

then it can safely be presumed that the disability occurred on account of stress and strains of army service. To the same effect is the judgment

passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in case reported as Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India 19996 4 SCT 154. In the said case also, it

was held that the petitioner who has been boarded out from service, would be deemed to have suffered the disability during the course of service

and would be attributable to military service.

In Gurdip Singh v. Union of India 1997 3 SCT 414, the writ petitioner was held entitled to disability pension. The plea taken by Union of India

that there was inordinate delay in filing the writ petition was rejected, by making following observations:

...It would be grossly unfair if the Government is permitted to take advantage of the situation in which the employee is placed and his claim for

pension was to be rejected only on the ground of delay. In fact, this Court has already taken that view. Reference in this behalf may be made in

Sardara Singh v. Union of India 1992 (6) SLR 683. It was held as under:

It is no doubt correct that the petitioner has filed the writ petition after a lapse of almost 40 years. A perusal of the order, quoted above, however,

shows that the petitioner had been regularly representing to the authorities and his claim was declined only on the ground that the disability was not

attributable to or aggravated by military service. This being factually incorrect, we have no alternative but to quash the order. Furthermore in the

circumstances of the case and more particularly the continuing disability (sic) delay in approaching the Court even in the matter of pension cannot

completely defeat his claim. We consider it to be in the interest of justice to allow his claim for the payment of pension. However, on account of

delay, we decline the petitioner's prayer for the payment of interest.

Therefore, from the judicial precedents referred to above, it can safely be held that if there is no mention regarding a disease or disablement at

the time of entry of an army personnel into service, then the disability on account of which the concerned army personnel is boarded out of service

would be deemed to have occurred due to hazards of army service and the disability claim of an army personnel cannot be rejected merely on the

ground of delay when the person concerned has been approaching the authorities concerned. In the present case also, as pleaded in paras 5 and 6

of the writ petition, the deceased during his life time and thereafter the appellant had been making representations to the authorities concerned for

settling the claim regarding grant of disability pension. These assertions made in the writ petition have not been denied by the Union of India.

Therefore, the question of delay would also not arise in this case.

The deceased in the present case was suffering from Schizophrenia. So far as this disease is concerned, the consistent view of this Court as

also other courts of the country is that the said disease can occur due to the stress and strains of army service.

In Balwant Singh v. Union of India and Ors. LPA(SVV) No. 521/98 decided by this Court on 17th of Nov'99, the appellant who was

suffering from Schizophrenia was held entitled to disability pension by observing as under:

Is Schizophrenia a disease which is attributable only to genetic factors or psychological factors, viral infections and other factors which lead to

cerebral disease also responsible for the malady? The subject has been discussed in 'Principles and Practice of Medicine' edited by Christopher

R.W. Edwards, IAN A.D. Bouchier, Chistopher Haslett, Edwin Quivers, Seventeenth Edition. It has been observed at page 997 that

Psychological stress plays a part in precipitating episodes of the illness. It has been shown that schizophrenics are likely to have been exposed to a

variety of adverse life events in the three weeks leading upto the onset of acute symptoms.""With regard to the viral infections, the observations

made are as under:

Viral infections and obstetric complications have been implicated as casual factors, probably resulting in a neurodevelopmental disorder.

Neurotransmitter disturbance is also responsible for the malady. With regard to this, it has been observed as under:

The final pathway by which the various aetiological factors cause Schizophrenia may be by interfering with neurotransmitter substance in the brain.

The most convincing hypothesis suggests that there is a functional overactivity in the dopaminergic neuronal systems in the mesolimbic and

mesocortical areas.

Many environmental factors have been indicated but the three most consistently involved are loss of a parent in childhood, lack of social support

and recent adverse life events. This indication at page 1000 of the above treatise. Therefore, to say that the disease can never be acquired or is not

attributable to army service is a theory which would amount to laying down too wide a proposition. As indicated above, loss of parent in

childhood, lack of social support and recent adverse life events are some of the factors which aggravate the disease....

After considering various judgments, this Court in the aforesaid case, as indicated above, finally observed that the disease of Schizophrenia has

necessarily to be attributed to the stress and strains of the army service and the appellant in the aforesaid case, suffering from Schizophrenia, was

ultimately held entitled to disability pension.

Again, in SWP No. 2542/02- titled Indu Bhushan Bali v. Union of India and Ors, decided on 19th of Sept'06, this Court allowed the petition

and the writ petitioner in the said case who was suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia was held entitled to disability pension.

In Harjit Singh v. Union of India 1998(4) SCT 88, the army personnel who was suffering from Schizophrenia was held entitled to disability

pension.

The Karnataka High Court in the case reported as Ex. Naik M.S. Pemmaiah v. Union of India 1998(3) SCT 755, had allowed the disability

pension where the concerned employee was invalidated out of service as he suffered from Schizophrenia. In the said case, the reasoning given was

that if a person was not suffering from the disease when he joined the service and when there was no entry that the person was suffering from any

disorder or disability, then it is to be presumed that the disease had occurred on account of stress and strain of army service and the same is

attributable to military service.

In the present case, the deceased as noticed above was enrolled in the army on 26th of Feb'74. He successfully completed the basic military

training and was posted to 6 JAK Rifles. Uptill March'81 i.e. for a period of about 7 years of the enrolment of the deceased, there were no

symptoms of the disease found in the deceased on the basis of which he was invalidated out of service. This fact is clear from the summary and

opinion given by the Release Medical Board, which has been placed on record as Annexure B with the objections filed by Union of India. In the

said certificate given by the Release Medical Board dt. 4th of Jan'83, the deceased has been declared to be an' old case of grandmal epilepsy' and

its origin is said to be w.e.f. 3rd of March'81. The deceased was said to be placed in low medical category since April'81. Therefore, on the basis

of the record of Union of India itself, as indicated above, it clearly establishes that the deceased did not suffer from any such disease

(Schizophrenia) at the time of his entry into service nor, as indicated above, the deceased showed any such symptoms even after about seven years

of his enrolment. The onset of symptoms of the said disease, as noticed above were first shown by the deceased in March'81, while he was posted

in operational area of Binnaguri. As the environmental factors as noticed above, can be instrumental in causing the disease of Schizophrenia,

therefore, the opinion of the Release Medical Board that the disease from which the deceased suffered is constitutional in nature cannot be

accepted. It is also pertinent to mention here that even in the certificate for willingness and recommendation of Officer Commanding of the Unit,

which has been placed on record as Annexure A to the objections filed by Union of India dated 10th of Sept'82, vide which the deceased had

shown unwillingness to continue in service, the medical category of the deceased which has been indicated as CEE Permanent (Physical), the same

has been shown as attributable to service. The relevant entry in this regard is being reproduced below:

Whether LMC due to

(a) War wounded -

(b) Attributable to service -- Yes

(c) Not attributable to service --

The Release Medical Board while giving its opinion that the disease from which the deceased suffered is constitutional in nature has not given

any past history/family history of the deceased. The Medical Board has also not indicated that any of the family member of the deceased ever

suffered from this disease or that the childhood stage of the deceased was found to be abnormal. It was also not indicated that the deceased was

found addicted to drugs or alcohol. The general health of the deceased was found to be 'satisfactory'.

Therefore, to say that the deceased was suffering from a disease which could be inherited or was related to genetic factor, would not be

correct.

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the disease of Schizophrenia from which the deceased suffered and which led to his

invalidation out of army service, is a disease which can occur due to the stress and strains of army service. The Release Medical Board has failed

to give any reasoning to show that the said disease from which the deceased suffered was constitutional in nature. The learned writ court, thus, has

erred in coming to the conclusion that since the medical board has found that the disease was not connected with the service, the appellant-writ

petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

This appeal, as such, is allowed.

The judgment impugned dated 8th of Dec'06 is set aside. The deceased husband of the appellant is held entitled to the disability pension w.e.f.

22nd of Feb'83 to 7th of Nov'96, alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The appellant is also held entitled to family pension. The arrears

of disability pension as also the family pension would be released in favour of the appellant within a period of two months from the date, a copy of

this order is made available to respondent authorities by the appellant or her counsel. In case, the needful is not done by the respondents within the

said period, the appellant would be entitled to interest on the arrears at the rate of 9% and this enhanced amount of interest would be payable by

the person on whose account the delay occurs.

Appeal allowed in the manner indicated above.