Union of India and Others vs No. 2986959 N Ex-Sep Satpal Singh

Jasbir Singh, J.—Order.

CM No. 4832 of 2010 has been filed with a prayer to condone delay of 349 days in filing this LPA. In the application, which is supported by an affidavit, no reason is given to condone the above said delay.

Be that as it may, we have heard counsel for the Appellants on merits also. It is apparent from the records that vide the impugned judgment, passed by the learned Single Judge on November 12, 2009, when awarding disability pension to the Respondent, it was observed as under:

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. It is admitted case of the parties that at the time of recruitment, the Petitioner was found medically fit and he had no such problem. The Petitioner developed the problem after joining the Army service. This fact cannot be lost sight of that the Army service carries great stress and strains, particularly when the Army personnel are deployed not only during war, but even at the time of law and order problem and other natural calamities along with in the Border areas. Their life is full of stress and strains. Such a disease is not unknown in such cases. It is also not recorded by the Medical Board that such a disease could not be detected at the time of Petitioners entry in service. Similar issue came up before various Courts from time to time. Relying upon various judgment of this Court and of the Delhi High Court, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of A J.S. Choudhary v. Union of India and Ors 1999 (1) RSJ 778 has held as under:

The ratio of the decisions, referred to herein above, fully support the argument of Shri Randhawa that the rejection of Petitioner''s claim for disability pension is legally unsustainable because at the time of his acceptance for military service, no note was recorded that he was suffering from Schizophrenia and the opinion recorded by the Medical Board at the time of his discharge from service does not contain a note that the disease was such which could not be detected at the time of Petitioner''s entry in the service.

xxx xxx xxx 22. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed. The decision of the respondents'' rejecting the petitioner''s claim for disability pension is quashed and it is declared that the petitioner is entitled to get disability pension in accordance with Rule 173 read with Appendix-I of the Army Regulations. The respondents are directed to calculate the disability pension payable to the petitioner from the date of discharge from service and pay the same to him within 4 months of the submission of certified copy of this order, else he shall get interest on arrears at the rate of 18% per annum.

This Court, while considering similar circumstances in the case of Surjit Singh v. the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence and others 1999(4) RSJ 385, has observed as under:

It will be seen that the impugned orders Annexures P-2 and P-5 are based on the assessment made by the CCDA (P) Allahabad and there is no reference medical board. As the CCDA (P) Allahabad or the Medical Authority attached thereto, did not have the occasion to examine the Petitioner and had based their assessment only on the record no sanctity can be accorded to such a decision. It is true, that the Respondents have also averred that the Petitioner''s disease as a constitutional one and could not be attributed to military service and that this decision had come from the invaliding Medical Board at the initial stage, but nothing has been put on record with regard to the decision of the said Board. Moreover, a constitutional disease does not ipso facto debar a person from claiming disability pension. This has been also held in Union of India and Ors. v. Sepoy Satwinder Singh and Anr. 1980(4) RSJ 467.

In view of the ratio of the aforesaid judgments and the facts noticed herein above the impugned order dated 15.3.1989 (Annexure P-3) rejecting the claim of the Petitioner for disability pension is hereby quashed and consequently the Respondents are directed to work out the disability pension payable to the Petitioner in accordance with rules. Let the claims of the Petitioner for disability pension be settled in accordance with law, however, the claim shall be restricted to three years preceding the filing of this petition and be released accordingly, within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the competent authority.

It has been noted as a matter of fact that when Respondent entered service of the Union of India, he was found medically fit and he developed the health problem after joining the Armed Forces, on the basis of which he was discharged from service. We are of the view that the judgment impugned is perfectly justified. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed.