Ex. Gnr. Malkit Singh vs Union of India

Mehtab S. Gill, J.—In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution India, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing order Annexure P3 by which his claim for disability pension has been rejected. The petitioner further prays for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant him disability pension.

The petitioner avers that he was enrolled in the Indian Army by the recruiting office from Ludhiana after having been found medically fit in the Medical Cate-gory''AYE''on 19.11.1983. After successful training he was posted as 252 AD Missile Battery where he served to the entire satisfaction of his superior officers and with devotion towards duty. He was subjected to routine medical examination a number of times and was found fit every time. Unfortunately, he fell sick due to giddiness and was admitted in the Military Hospitals. He was downgraded to Medical Category ''EE'' Temporary for six months. The disease of the petitioner persisted and he was finally downgraded to the Medical Category ''EEE'' Permanent with 40% disability by the Military Hospital, Pathankot and finally he was discharged from military service on 31.7.1992 on the recommendations of the Medical Board. The petitioner was found suffering from Neurotic Depression. The petitioner was assured by the medical authorities that he would be granted disability pension but to his utter surprise, he was intimated by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 17.7.1992 that his disability pension claim has been rejected by the respondent No. 3 on the ground that the disability was not attributable to military service and that he did not fulfil the conditions namely that it existed before or arose during military service and had been or remained aggravated thereby.

In the written statement filed by the respondents, the claim of the petitioner has been repudiated. It has been pleaded that the disability from which the petitioner suffered during his military service and on which his disability pension claim was based, was considered as neither attributable to nor aggravaged by the military service. In the opinion of Medical Board, the petitioner was suffering from Neurotic Depression which is a constitutional disease having resulted from domestic stress and the same had no connection whatsoever with the military service.

I have heard Mr. B.S. Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Rathee, Additional Senior Standing Counsel for the Union of India and perused the entire record.

The counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of judgment rendered by Hon''ble Mr. Justice R.L. Anand, on 10.7.2000 in Civil Writ Petition No. 6668 of 1998. The operative part of the judgment is reproduced hereunder :-

"By relying upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, referred to above, I allow this writ petition and grant the relief to the petitioner by giving directions to the respondents to release the disability pension of the petitioner wi(h effect from 28.12.1996, within three months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12%. No order as costs. The petitioner shall appear before the Re-Survey Medical Board, if called upon by the respondents."

Mr. Rathee appearing for the Union of India, could no; draw any distinction between the facts of the two cases and has very fairly conceded that the case in hand is fully covered by the judgment in B. Sargeant Satnam Singh Bajwa''s cas (supra).

Therefore, following the decision in B. Sergeant Satnam Singh Bajwa''s case, this writ petition is allowed and it is held that the petitioner is entitled to disability pension. The respondents shall release the disability pension to the petitioner accordingly after calculating the same strictly according to Rules, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The parties shall bear their own costs to this litigation. The petitioner shall appear before the Re-Survey Medical Board, if required by the respondents.

Petition allowed.