N.K. Sadhu Singh vs Union of India (UOI)

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The petitioner who was enrolled in the India Army on July 17, 1970, was discharged on May 10, 1980 on medical grounds. His claim for the grant of disability pension having been rejected by the respondents, he has approached this Court through the present writ petition. In the writ petition even a prayer for the grant of regular pension by condoning "the short fall of 67 days", had also been made. However, in view of the rejection of this prayer by the Motion Bench vide order dated January 15, 1992, the claim in respect of grant of disability pension only has been pressed at the time of arguments. Facts as relevant for this limited relief may be briefly noticed.

The petitioner avers that he was a heavy weight boxer and had won the Eastern Command Boxing Championship. In 1978 he was sent for practice at Fort Williams, Calcutta to participate in the National Boxing Championship. For this purpose, the petitioner was temporarily attached to the Gorkha Regiment at Fort Williams. On December 22, 1978 during the course of training "he got severe blow" As a result, he got acute pain in the left side of his chest with intense burning sensation in the pericaridium. This was accompanied by feeling of heaviness in "his whole body.....". He was checked up at the M.I. Room and ultimately admitted in the Command Hospital. The petitioner was given treatment in different Hospitals. Ultimately, he was sent to the Mental Hospital. He was placed in Medical category ''CEE''. He was shifted to the Command Hospital, Pune and was placed in medical category "EEE". On May 10, 1980, he was discharged from service with the final diagnosis of "Affective Psychosis (MDP) (Bipolar Type)". After his discharge from the Army the petitioner represented to the Army authorities for the grant of disability pension but his claim was declined. Appeal filed by his wife was also rejected. The applications submitted by the father of the petitioner to the Army Authorities also met with the same fate. Ultimately, the petitioner has approached this Court and claims that he is entitled to the grant of disability pension in accordance with the Pension Regulations.

In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents it has been admitted that "the petitioner was a heavy weight boxer and had represented the teams at formation level. There was no history of any knock out, head injury, fits, mental illness, alcoholism or drug addiction. He was admitted in Command Hospital, Eastern Command, Calcutta on 26th December, 1978, with a complaint of pain (left) side of chest giving a long history of depression, worried about his wife and pointedly stated that he had no interest in boxing since 1976.... He was admitted in Military Hospital, Silchar on February 10, 1979, transferred to 155 Base Hospital on February 10, 1979 and diagnosed as a case of Paranoid Schizophrenia. He was treated with anxiolytics, psychotherapy and a short course of Electroplexy. On 10.4.1980, he was examined by Graded Specialists (Psychiatry) at Command Hospital, Pune and all investigations including EEC were within normal limits. He was diagnosed as a case of Affective Psychosis (Bipolar type), placed in category ''EEE'' and declared unfit for retention in service. He was then brought before a duly constituted Medical Board which came to a conclusion that invalidating disability affective Psychosis (MDP) (Bipolar type), was neither attributable to nor aggravated by service and accordingly the petitioner was discharged from service on May 10, 1980. The respondents, thus, maintain that since the disability was not attributable to the Army service, the petitioner was not entitled to grant of disability pension.

I have heard Mr. S.S. Bajwa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Joginder Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents.

Mr. Bajwa has contended that the petitioner was a healthy young man at the time of his entry into service. He was a boxing champion. The sudden deterioration to his physical condition was only on account of illness which was attributable to the Army Service and the petitioner was entitled to the grant of disability pension. The claim of the petitioner has been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents.

The grant of disability pension to the Army Personnel is governed by the provisions of Pension Regulation 173, which reads as under:-

"Unless otherwise specifically provided of 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 percent or over."

Paragraph 423(c) lays down the manner of determination of medical disability, which reads as under:-

"(c) The cause of disability or death resulting from a disease is attributable to service when it is established that the disease arose during service on the condition and circumstances of the disease. Cases in which it is established that service condition did not determine or contribute to the onset of the disease but influenced the subsequent course of the disease will be regarded as aggravated by service. A disease which led to an individual''s discharge or death will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service if no note of its was made at the time of the individual''s acceptance for service in the Armed Forces. However, if medical opinion holds, for the reasons to be stated that the diseases could not have been detected on medical examination prior to acceptance for service, the disease will not be deemed to have arisen during service."

It has no where been averred that the petitioner was suffering from any kind of ailment at the time of his entry into service. It has also not been suggested that his problem was such as "could not have been detected on medical examination prior to acceptance for service". Still further, the sequence of events shows that the petitioner was in perfect health even while attending the ''Camp'' at ''Fort Williams''. In fact it has been conceded in the written statement that the petitioner was a heavy weight boxer and had represented the services teams at different levels. The respondents have denied the petitioner''s allegation that the injury was caused to him during strenuous training in boxing, in spite of the fact that he had been admittedly attached to the Gorkha Regiment at Fort Williams, for training. Still further, the medical report dated December 22, 1978 a copy of which has been produced as annexure P-2 with the writ petition, shows that the petitioner was examined for acute pain in the left side of the chest with intense burning sensation in the pericardium. The following note had been made:-

"Patient is a 27 years old NK., a boxer who while boxing this morning all of a sudden got acute pain in the left side of the chest with intense burning sensation of the pericardium. This was accompanied by feeling of heaviness of his whole body".

This medical report which was recorded on December 12, 1978 corroborates the petitioner''s averment that it was during the course of strenuous training that he had complained of para in his chest and that it could have been the result of the blow which he had got at that time. Still further, it is possible that on account of the physical handicap that ensued the petitioner suffered from depression which was ultimately diagnosed as "Affective Psychosis (MDP) Bipolar Type)". He was ordered to be invalidated out of service. A further direction was given by the Medical Officer that the petitioner should be allowed to go "with two Escorts". These is not even a remote indication either in the written statement or anywhere else on the record that the illness was caused by any factor other than the injury during the practice session. Learned counsel for the respondents is unable to point out any evidence on the record which may show that the sickness was attributable to any thing except the Military Service. In this situation, the view taken by the respondents that the disability was not attributable to the Military Service, cannot be sustained.

Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner''s claim for the grant of disability pension was wrongly rejected. The writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to determine the amount of disability pension admissible to the petitioner. The amount of pension would be decided by the respondents within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and all arrears that may be found due shall be paid. The amount of pension found due shall thereafter be regularly paid to the petitioner every month. If the arrears are not released to the petitioner in accordance with the above directions within the specified time, the petitioner will be entitled to the payment with interest at the rate of 12% from the date the amount fell due till its actual payment. In the circumstances of the case the petitioner shall also be entitled to the costs which are assessed at Rs. 2000/-.