Satish Chandra vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—By means of this petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has sought writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to pay discharge pension to the Petitioner, as provided in Army Act, 1950 read with Army Rules, 1954.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the Petitioner was enrolled as ''MASALCHI'' bearing No. 1580485Y on 26.12.1989 with the Bombay Engineering Group, Krikee, Pune, of the Indian Armed Forces. Services of the Petitioner in said Unit, was governed by Army Act, 1950 and Army Rules, 1954. According to the Petitioner, during the period of service, he performed his duties to the utmost satisfaction of his superior officers. However, during the service, the Petitioner developed hypertension and was discharged from the service on medical ground, after the Petitioner was examined by the Medical Board of the Indian Army and was recommended for being discharged. The Petitioner got discharged on 30.6.1994, i.e., within less than five years service. In other words, the Petitioner served the Indian Army for a period less much than the term of engagement. The Petitioner was issued certificate of commutation of pension (Annexure-2 to the petition). It is alleged in the writ petition that since the Petitioner is discharged from the service on medical ground, the Respondents have wrongfully refused him disability pension, to which he is entitled under the Army Act and Rules, framed thereunder.

Respondents contested the writ petition and filed counter-affidavit on their behalf through Lt. Rajendra Prasad. It is admitted in the counter-affidavit that the Petitioner was enrolled as ''MASALCHI'' bearing No. 1580485Y, and Army Act, 1950 and Army Rules, 1954, were applicable to his services. However, it is stated in the counter-affidavit that the discharge from the Army was sought by the Petitioner himself, on compassionate ground, mentioning following reasons:

(i) that his parents had expired,

(ii) that he had to look after his younger brother, and

(iii) that he had to cultivate his land, as there is none to cultivate the same, in his village.

Thereafter, the Petitioner got admitted in the Military Hospital, Nasirabad on 18th December, 1993, and discharged from said Hospital on 22nd December, 1993. At the time of his admission in the Hospital, he was diagnosed to be suffering from ''HYSTERICAL DISSOCIATIVE STATE'', and was placed in temporary low medical category ''BEE'', for six months w.e.f. 21st December, 1993. The Petitioner got discharged from the Army in the year 1994, as his request for discharge from service on compassionate ground, was accepted under Rule 13 (3) of the Army Rules. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the Petitioner is not entitled to the disability pension, claimed by him, as his actual discharge is because of his request on compassionate ground, and merely for the reason that he was suffering from ''HYSTERICAL DISSOCIATIVE STATE'', he is not entitled to the disability pension, on medical ground.

Admittedly, the Petitioner was enrolled as ''MASALCHI'' with the Bombay Engineering Group, Krikee, Pune. It is also admitted that the Petitioner got discharged without completing the term of engagement, within a period of five years from the Indian Army. It is also not disputed that before the Petitioner was discharged from the service, he was admitted in the Military Hospital and was diagnosed suffering from ''HYSTERICAL DISSOCIATIVE STATE''.

Learned Central Government counsel appearing for the Respondents drew attention of this Court to Annexure-1 to the counter-affidavit, in which the Petitioner himself has sought retirement from the service, for the reasons as under:

(i) that parents of the Petitioner have died,

(ii) that Petitioner has a younger brother at home, and there is none to look after him,

(iii) that there is none in the family to cultivate his agricultural land, and the same is left barren, in the village.

The above document clearly shows that the Petitioner has sought discharge from the Army on his own motion.

In the rejoinder-affidavit it has been stated that the Petitioner is not discharged on the compassionate ground but on the medical ground. However, Annexure-2 to the counter-affidavit shows that the Petitioner''s request (Annexure-1 to the counter-affidavit) was considered and recommended by the authorities concerned for his discharge from service on his own request. Annexure-3 to the counter-affidavit, which is a copy of noting sheet, also suggests that the Petitioner''s discharge/ premature retirement was sanctioned on the compassionate, ground, mentioned as above. As such, without completing the term for which the Petitioner was engaged or without completing the minimum period of service, which entitles the Petitioner for pension, he does not appear to be entitled to the disability pension.

As far as the disability pension is concerned, it is admissible to the persons, who served the Forces, even without completing the minimum required term, provided the disease they suffered was result of stress and strain of service conditions and was directly attributable to military service. There is no averment in the writ petition that ''HYSTERICAL DISSOCIATIVE STATE'' was directly attributable to the services rendered by the Petitioner in the Indian Army. As such, it cannot be said that the disability pension is admissible to the Petitioner.

For the reasons as discussed above, this writ petition has no force, and the same is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (All pending applications in this Petition also stand disposed of).