AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner's case for grant of disability pension stands rejected on the ground that he suffered a constitutional disorder which was not attributable or
aggravated by the military duty. He has filled this petition to assail the action.
Petitioner was enrolled in the Defence Security Corps (DSC) on 13.11.1985. He went through a training course and was posted in Calcutta at the
relevant time. He was placed on charge on 23.4.1990 and was asked to fill up Form 10 which according to him, was sent to the command
Hospital for boarding him out of service, he was allegedly admitted in the hospital and was placed in low medical category 'CEE'
Officer incharge, Raksha Surakha Corps Abhilekh Defence Security Corps Record, Hill Road, Cannore670013
Naib Subedar Nekpal Singh, 376 DSC Platoon c/o Ordinance Factory Dum Dum Calcutta .
Officer commanding 376 DSC Platoon c/o Ordiance Factory, Dum Dum Calcutta.
(Respondent)
With effect from 17.1.1988. his ailment was diagnosed as that of neurosis and the medical board on examination declared him unfit. He was
invalidated out of service on 2.9.1990 on account of ""ID Personality disorder"". He thereafter asked for grant of disability pension which was
rejected by respondent No.2 vide communication dated 15.9.199 on the plea that his disability was nether attributable to nor aggravated by the
military service. He took an appeal against this which was rejected vide order dated 29.7.1992 on the same basis. He questions this rejection in
the present writ petition.
Petitioner's case is that his request for grant of disability pension was rejected at his back and on extraneous considerations and at the instance of
respondent No.4. It is also submitted by him that respondent No.3 who had back tracked later. It is also projected that on respondents own show
in his alleged' personality disorder1 had occurred in April 1990 and the fact that he was allowed to continue in service till that date, showed that his
ailment, if any, was caused his enrolment and during the service.
In the reply filled by the respondents it is submitted that the petitioner was placed in the low medical category 'CEE' temporarily with effect from
17.7.1998 as a case of neurosis. He was, however upgraded to medical category ""AYE"" from 19.4.1989.He was hospitalised on 25.4.1990 after
it was noticed that he would suddenly turn violent and then calm down. Accordingly the medical board was held on 9.8.1990 and he was declared
unfit for further service due to paychiatric disorder. The board also opined that his diability was not connected with any military and that it was a
constitutional disorder. He was accordingly invalidated out or service under Army Regulation 133 item III (iii). his diability pension claim, was
forwarded to the CCDA(P) Allahabad but was rejected. So was his appeal. It is pointed out that no principles of natural justice were required to
be observed or out sting the petitioner from service and that the diaability pension was liable to be granted to him only if his disability could be
attributed to the military service.
I have already disposed of an identical matter involving interpretation of Army Pension Regulations 173 and 173A read with rule 7(b) of Appendix
II and amendment made in this regulation thereafter vide C.S No. 37/IV7 67.
It goes without saying that the grant of disability pension to army personnel is governed by of 1961, which, inter alia provide for grant of disability
pension to an individual who is invalidation fromservice on account of disability which is attributable to or aggravated by the military service and is
assessed at 20 percent or over, the question whether such disability was attributable to or aggravated by the military service wasto be decided in
accordance with Rule 7( bx) of Appendix II which lays down that a disease which had led to an individual's discharge or death will ordinarily be
deemed to have arisen in service, if no note was made of it at the time of individual's acceptance for military service However, if the medical
opinion hold that the disease was such which could not havebeen detected on medical examination, on entry into service, such disease would not
be deemed to have arisen during the service.
Consequent upon the amendment made Vi Army regulation 173, the scope for grant of disability pension stands widened in as much as now all
those individuals who are discharged on account of their being permanently low medical category become entitled to disability pension. In other
words, the amendment has created an additional avenue of entitlement irrespective of weather an ailment or disease was attributable to or
aggravated by military service.
In the present case, petitioner was enrolled in 1985 and he was placed in low medical category ""CEE' on 17.1.1988. In between he was also
upgraded to medical category ""AYE' from 19.7.1989 but was invalidated out of service after he was declared unfit by the medical board on
account of his ailment which was characterised as 'constitutional personality disorder'.
In the circumstances it is not difficult to gather that petitioner's disease, whatever name was given to it, was not noticed at the time of his enrolment
in the service, nor was the disease such as was incapable of being noticed by the medical experts. On the contrary, his ailment was not noticed till
1990 for 5 years for which period he was continued till 1990 for which period he was continued in service and admittedly discharged the duties.
Therefore, considering that his disorder or disease was noticed 5 years after his enrolment and that his medical category underwent a change
during various medical examinations, only shows that his ailment was attributable to the military service after it had gone unnoticed at the time of his
enrolment. In any case it is the admitted position that the petitioner was boarded out of service on account of his permanent disability bringing his
case with in the amended Army Regulation 1973. As such his case is covered on both counts.
In the result I allow this petition and direct the official respondents to granrt disability pension to the petitioner in accordance with rules and subject
to his satisfying the requirements, if any, in this regard, with six months from the date of receipt of this order.