Shamsher Singh vs Union of India

T.S. Doabia, J.—On 27th of July 2000, this petition was admitted. On this date respondents were directed to file counter. It was also

observed that if counter is not filed, objections would be treated as counter. Counter has not been filed. Objections have been treated as counter.

If the facts as given in the objections preferred by Union of India are taken into consideration, it becomes apparent that the petitioner was

placed in Medical Category (EEE) by a duly constituted Medical Board. He was found to be suffering from Schizophrenia (295). He was,

therefore, boarded out of service. His disability was assessed at 20%. The disease was detected as constitutional. The claim of the petitioner for

grant of disability (pension) was submitted to the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) Allahabad. The said authority has refused to

grant the disability pension. This aspect is adverted to in paras ""6 and 7"" of the reply. For facility of reference these paragraphs are reproduced

below :

....Accordingly the claim of the petitioner for grant of disability pension was submitted to CCDA (Pension) Allahabad as they are the competent

authority to sanction such claims. CCDA(P) Allahabad vide their letter No. Grants/Militia/Dis58 dated 22.05.1974 (Copy attached) rejected the

claim in consultation with their Medical Advisor (Pension) on the grounds that the disability ""Schizophrenia (295)"" from which the petitioner

suffered is neither attributable to nor aggravated by the Military service. Accordingly no disability pension to the petitioner is admissible under

Rules. This decision of CCDA (P) Allahabad was communicated to the petitioner under Records J&K Militia letter No. 9078711/D602/Pen

dated 12.6.1974 with an advise to submit an appeal against rejection of his disability pension, if desired, within six months from 22.5.1974 on such

grounds as he may deem fit to put forth. Accordingly the petitioner submitted an appeal direct to Government of India, Ministry of Defence, who

scrutinized the case and found no reasonable grounds to alter the decision of CCDA(P) Allahabad already communicated to be petitioner.

Thereafter, numerous petitions were received from the petitioner from time to time and the same were accordingly replied and factual position of

his case was explained to him by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence vide their letter No. 21543/Pen (AppCtte) dated 9.12.1976 and Records

JAKLI No. 9078711/Case/NE dated 6.9.97. Copies attached.

The question to be determined in this petition is as to whether a person who is boarded out of service on account of his having suffered from the

disease of Schizophrenia is entitled to disability pension. The legal position in this regard be noticed.

In Ram Niwas Goswami v. Union of India, 2000(2) SCT 490 (P&H) the petitioner was suffering from Schizophernia. He was discharged from

Air Force, disability pension was refused. There was no evidence on the record to indicate that he was suffering from this ailment at the time of his

recruitment or prior thereto. The disease was diagnosed after five years of enrollment. The petitioner was held entitled to disability pension.

In Pritam Singh v. Union of India, 2000(2) SCT 862 (J&K) , the writ petitioner was discharged after seven years of service. This was on the

ground of Scizophrenic Psychosis Catatoic disorder. The disability was determined at 30%, but actual grant of disability pension was denied.

Taking note of a decision given by a Division Bench of the J&K High Court, what was said in paragraphs ""5"" and ""6"" is being reproduced below :

With regard to the disease of Schizophrenia, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Balwant Singh v. Union of India, 2000(4) SCT 994

(Delhi) : LPA 521/98 decided on 17th November 1999 has expressed an opinion that even this disease can be acquired on account of hazards of

army service. In the above case, reference has been made to a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which deals with the ailment of

Neurosis.' The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed disability pension. This decision is reported as Gurmukh Singh v. Union of India, 1999(3)

SCT 139 . Therefore, what has been said by the Division Bench of this Court visavis disease of Schizophrenia and also interpretation made

regarding the disease of Neurosis by the Punjab and Haryana High Court would apply to the facts of this case also.

The Karnataka High Court in the case of ExNaik M.S. Pemmaiah v. Union of India, 1998(3) SCT 755 has allowed the disability pension where

the concerned employee was suffering from Schizophrenia. In the aforementioned decision the reasoning given is 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 Ram Mehar Singh v. Union of India, 2000(3) SCT 190 (P&H) , a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed disability

pension where the petitioner was suffering from Schizophrenia. The Punjab and Haryana High Court while placing reliance on a Division Bench

Judgment of that Court reported as Union of India v. Ex. Sepoy Satwinder Singh, 1998(4) RSJ 467 and A.J.S. Choudhary v. Union of India,

1999(1) RSJ 778, allowed disability pension where the claimant came be suffer from the malady of Schizophrenia.

In Janak Raj v. Union of India, 2000(2) SCT 456 (P&H) , the disability of the aggrieved Army personnel was determined by the Medical

Board at 40%. The Controller of Defence Accounts rejected the claim. It was observed that the Controller of Defence Accounts cannot sit over

the findings of the Medical Board, as Controller of Defence Accounts is not an expert in this regard. In another case reported as Nk. Darshan

Singh v. Union of India, 2000(2) SCT 504 (P&H) , the claimant came to suffer from a paralytic stroke. It was a case of 100% invalidity. The

recommendation made by the Medical Board was negatived by the Controller of Defence Accounts. It was observed that the Medical Board's

opinion should prevail and the claimant was hold entitled to family pension.

In ExSepoy Jagbir Singh v. Union of India, 2000(2) (sic) 556 Delhi, disability was caused on account of Idiopathic Disorder. The claimant had

served the Army for six years. When he joined the Army nothing was mentioned regarding his eye ailment. His disability was determined at 40%

by the Medical Board. He was held entitled to disability pension when the malady from which an Army man was boarded out was not indicated at

the time of joining the service.

As a matter of fact, this aspect of the matter has been considered in the case of Union of India v. Rattan Lal, 1999(2) SCT 39 , wherein it has

been observed as under :

(1) 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 the disability would be on account of stress and strains of army service;

(iii) if the competent authority is to disagree with the finding recorded by the medical board visavis the disability or the percentage thereof the

matter should be referred to the Medical Board;

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

into service, the appellantUnion of India cannot take a somersault and come to a contrary conclusion;

(v) delay in approaching the Court is irrelevant.

Whatever has been stated above, would apply to the facts of this case also. As there was no mention of any disease at the time of entry of the

petitioner in service, it can safely be concluded that the disease on account of which the petitioner was invalided out of service occurred due to

stress and strain of the army service.

The petitioner is accordingly held entitled to pension. Let this be released within a period of two months from the date, a copy of this order is

made available to the respondentauthorities as also to the counsel who has put in appearance on their behalf. The petitioner is also held entitled to

interest. The rate of interest would be 12%. In case the pension is not released within the aforementioned period, then the petitioner would be

entitled to interest at the rate of 15% and this enhanced interest would be payable by the person on whose account delay occurs.

Disposed of accordingly.