AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.D. Dinakaran, J.—The Petitioner joined in Naval service on 30.6.1980, after he was found medically fit for recruitment in the Indian
Navy. However, he was discharged from service on 17.5.1988 by the Medical Board. During the course of his service, he appeared before the
Medical Board on two occasions, viz. on 27.1.1986 and 30.1.1988. The Medical Board found that the Petitioner was suffering from Neurotic
depression. Contending that the said Neurotic depression has been caused due to shock and strain in naval service, the Petitioner alleges that he
was suffering from 20% disability relatable to sleeplessness, strain and shock and therefore, prays for disability pension.
However, the third Respondent, by proceedings dated 9.12.1988, rejected the claim for disability pension on the ground that the said disability
was unconnected to naval service and is assessed at less than 20%.
The said order of the third Respondent dated 9.12.1988 was also confirmed by the first Respondent in his proceedings dated 30.11.1989
holding that there was no evidence of service factors attributing to its onset or adversely effecting its subsequent course. Therefore, it was
unconnected with the naval/ military service of the Petitioner.
Aggrieved by the said refusal of disability pension, the Petitioner has filed this writ petition for issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call
for the records relating to the order of the first Respondent dated 30.11.1989, to quash the same as illegal and to direct the Respondents to grant
disability pension to him from the date of discharge.
According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner the Petitioner was hale and healthy at the time of his joining in the naval/ military service and
he suffered Neurotic depression as a result of his stress and strain in the military service. Therefore, he contends that refusal of disability pension to
the Petitioner is arbitrary and unreasonable.
There is no representation by the Respondents to deny the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner.
In this regard, I am obliged to refer Regulations 48 and 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, which reads as follows:
Regulation 48(a): An officer who is retired from military service on account of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by such service and
is assessed at 20 per cent or over may, on retirement, be awarded a disability pension consisting of a service element and a disability element in
accordance with the regulations in this section; (b) The question whether a disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service shall be
determined under the rules in Appendix II.
Regulation 173: Unless otherwise specifically provided, a disability pension may be granted to an individual who is invalidated from service on
account of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service and is assessed at 20 per cent or over.
The question whether a disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service shall be determined under the rules in Appendix II.
As per Regulation 48(b) referred to above, whether a disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service rendered by claimant shall be
determined under Appendix II. As per Regulation 173, only those who are invalidated from service on account of disability, which is attributable to
or aggravated by military service and or assessed at 20% or above, are entitled for the disability pension.
Rule 2, 3 & 4 of the Entitlement Rules provided under Appendix II read as follows:
Rule 2: Disablement or death shall be accepted as due to military service provided it is certified that:
(a) the disablement is due to a wound, injury or disease which (i) is attributable to military service; or (ii) existed before or arose during military
service and has been and remains aggravated thereby;
(b) the death was due to or hastened by (i) wound, injury or disease which was attributable to military service ; or (ii) the aggravation by military
service of a wound, injury or disease which existed before or arose during military service.
Rule 3: There must be a casual connection between disablement and military service for attributability or aggravation to be conceded.
Rule 4: In deciding on the issue of entitlement all the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, will be taken into account and benefit of reasonable
doubt will be given to the claimant. This benefit will be given more liberally to the claimant in field service cases.
Even though Rule 3 of the Entitlement Rules contemplates that there must be a casual connection between the disablement and military service
for the attributability or aggravation to be conceded, Clause (a) & (b) of Rule 2 of the Entitlement Rules, contemplates that the disablement or
death shall be accepted as due to military service and should be certified that such disablement is due to wound, injury or a disease that is
attributable to and aggravated by military services. When a wound or injury on the body could be directly read into attributable to or aggravated
by military service, a disease could not be directly read into attributable to or aggravated by military service. It is for that reason, Rule 7 of the
Entitlement Rules provides detailed guidelines to arrive at a conclusion as to the diseases which are attributable to and aggravated by the military
service.
Rule 7 of the Entitlement Rules provides guideline for assessment to estimate the degree of the disablement.
Clause A, B, C, D & E of Annexure to Appendix II, enlist the diseases that are affected by climatic conditions, stress and strain, dietary
compulsions, training, marching affected by service, respectively. Admittedly, Psychosis and Psychoneurosis are classified as a disease affected by
stress and strain, as enumerated under Clause B of Annexure to Appendix II.
As per Dr. Davil L. Braff, the stress-diathesis model hypothesizes that there is a vulnerability which is inherited in schizophrenia-prone
individuals. These vulnerable individuals are at high risk for developing schizophrenia under certain stressful circumstances. Therefore, it is clear the
mental illness is broad in its limits and more difficult to define precisely than the colours on a mountain at sunset. There may be many unknown
factors behind such causes. One of them is a social pathological cause flows from worries, anxieties, emotional stress, tension, frustration,
insecurity etc.
It is for this reason, the rule makers have though it fit to give a liberal interpretation in favour of complainants of Schizophrenia''.
As held by the Kerala High Court in Nanu Ariyarapploi, Ex-Gunner v. UOT in O.P. No. 19291 of 1991-A, one would come to the
conclusion, without any hesitation, that environment in the field service would render the Petitioner to suffer from mental illness.
Under similar facts and circumstances of the case, Punjab & Haryana Court in Hukum Singh v. The State of Hry. reported in 2001 (2) SLR
432 held that judicial notice could be taken that when the Petitioner entered the army, he was supposed to undergo a medical check up and there
was nothing on record to show that at the time of admission of the Petitioner in the navy, he was declared unfit or it was found that he was suffering
from any ailment much less neurotic depression. Therefore, such type of disease is invariably suffered by the Jawans on account of their arduous
duties which they perform at various stations of postings.
In view of the ratio laid down in the above decision, I am satisfied that in the absence of any denial on the part of the Respondents, I am
obliged to hold that the Petitioner was not suffering from any disability or disorder at the time of his admission in the navy. Consequently, it has to
be inferred that the disability which the Petitioner was found suffering at the time of discharge, must relate to the naval service. Therefore, I am of
the opinion that the disease suffered by the Petitioner is attributable to the naval service and hence, he is entitled to the benefit of disability pension.
In the above circumstances, I am obliged to quash the impugned proceedings dated 30.11.1989 and remit the matter to the third Respondent
to settle the disability pension to the Petitioner, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is allowed. No costs. WMP No. 18168 of 1994 is closed.