Punjab-Haryana High Court
Haresh Kumar, (Ex. Havildar) vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 30 October, 1998
Equivalent citations: (1999)121PLR498
Author: Harjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Harjit Singh Bedi
JUDGMENT Harjit Singh Bedi, J.
1. The petitioner was enrolled in the Army as a Havildar on 20th December, 1990 after having been found medically fit. During the course of his training he was sanctioned ten days casual leave from 9.10.1991 to 20.10.1991. During this period, the petitioner met with a road accident while riding a scooter and broke his femur. He was thereafter treated as an indoor patient in the Army Hospitals at Pathankot and Udhampur for about eight months and after recovery was sent for further training to the Army College at Panchmari. The petitioner, however, developed serious medical problems after the completion of his training and he was given treatment at various Army Hospitals. He was also brought before a Medical Board which assessed his disability at 90 per cent, i.e. 50% psychological and 40% surgical, the psychological disability being Schizophrenia, whereas the physical disability being communicated fracture of the shaft of the femur. The petitioner was accordingly invalided out of service vide Annexure P-3 dated 27th March, 1993. The petitioner, thereafter moved a representation for the grant of pensionary benefits and, in particular, laid a claim to the grant of disability pension. The claim was however rejected by respondent No. 3 (C.D.A. Pension Allahabad) on 17th October, 1995 on the ground that his disability was not attributable to Army Service. The petitioner then filed an appeal against the rejection order and when no action was taken by the appellate authority i.e. Government of India, he filed C.W.P. No. 15693 of 1997 in this Court. The Division Bench vide its order dated 20th October, 1997 directed that the petitioner's appeal be disposed of within a time bound frame. The appellate authority thereafter vide its order dated 23th November, 1997, Annexure P-7 to the petition, rejected the petitioner's claim on the ground that he had suffered the fracture when he was at home on casual leave and as the Schizophrenia was a constitutional disorder it, too, could not be said to have been caused or aggravated by Military Service. Annexure P-7 has been impugned in the present proceedings.
2. A written statement has been put in by the respondents and it has been pointed out that the petitioner had been invalided out of service as he was found physically and mentally unfit due to a fracture of the femur and also suffering from Schizophrenia. It has been highlighted that the petitioner had suffered the fracture in a scooter accident when he was on casual leave in his village and as Schizophrenia was a constitutional disorder it too could not be said to have been aggravated by Military Service.
3. Mr. Rajesh Girdhar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has argued that as the petitioner had suffered a fracture of his femur while he was on casual leave, even though it was a private visit to his home town, the petitioner was en- titled to treat the period of casual leave as being on duty and was, therefore, en- titled to claim disability pension. He has in this connection placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Joginder Singh v. Union of India and Ors., 1997(2) R.S.J. 413 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Shri Krishan Dahiya v. Union of India and Anr., 1996(4) R.S.J. 503.
4. Mr. Malhotra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Union of India, has however urged that neither of these judgments could be applied to the facts of the present case.
5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties on this score, I am of the opinion that Mr. Girdhar's argument is without merit. In both the cited cases, the individual claiming the benefit of disability pension was travelling on leave from his Unit to his home town or vice-versa and had suffered injuries in the course of the journey. It was in that situation that the Courts held that a person travelling outward on an annual or casual leave or returning therefrom was a person deemed to be on duty and, therefore, entitled to claim disability pension in case he suffered an injury during the course of the journey. In the present case the petitioner suffered an injury during casual leave while at home.
6. Mr. Girdhar has then argued that the petitioner was nevertheless entitled to claim disability pension on account of Schizophrenia that he had contracted during the course of his employment in the Army. In this connection, he has pointed out that the petitioner was enrolled in service as being fully fit on 20th December, 1990 and even after having suffered a severe injury to his leg, had completed his training successfully and it was thereafter that he had displayed symptom of Schizophrenia. He has accordingly urged that in this situation the presumption would be that the petitioner had contracted this disease on account of military service. In this connection, he has cited a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Union of India v. Gurnam Singh, 1998(2) Judicial Reports (Labour & Service) 1.91. In this case, while construing Regulation 173 of the Army Pension Regulations, 1961-and Rule 73 of the entitlement rules, it was held as under:
"A bare reading of paragraph 7(b) shows that in the absence of any note recorded at the time of individual's acceptance for military service, the disease which has led to the individual's discharge will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in the course of service. The only exception to this rule is that the competent authority holds an opinion, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior to acceptance for service. In the case in hand, no note was made at the time of the respondent's entry into service that he was suffering from epilepsy and no record was placed before the learned Single Judge to show that the competent authority had formed an opinion, on the basis of the reasons recorded on the file, that the disease with which the respondent suffered was such that it could not be detected on medical examination prior to his acceptance for service."
In this view of the matter, a presumption is to be drawn that the petitioner's disease Schizophrenia was to be attributed to military service.
7. The question was arises as to whether Schizophrenia though a constitutional disease, could still be attributed to military service. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Single Bench decision of this Court in C.W.P. No. 10827 of 1997 (Harjit Singh v. Union of India etc.,) decided on May 14, 1998, which dealt with a case of Schizophrenia. This judgment was rendered on a consideration of various other judgments of this and other Courts and, in particular, to a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Bhag Singh v. Union of India and Ors., 1996(4) R.S.J. 55. In Bhag Singh's case it was observed as under:
"There is an Annexure with the Rules in Appendix II to Regulation 173 to Pension Regulations for the Army Part-I of 1961 which deals with classification of various diseases which are to be effected by climatic conditions, affected by stress and strain, affected by dietary compulsions, training, marching etc. and normally affected by the service. In the list of diseases affected by stress and strain of military service, the disease known as "psychosis" and "psychoneurosis" have been included. Needless to say, these diseases relates to mental disorder of an individual. Schizophrenia, with which the petitioner was suffering from and which disease he developed during his military service, can definitely be said to be adversely affected by the stress and strain of the military service."
8. It is the admitted position that an appeal taken to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhag Singh's case and to the Letter Patent Bench in Harjit Singh's case have since been dismissed. In this situation, it is evident that the petitioner in the present case, must also succeed and he held entitled to a disability pension on being invalided out of service, as being a Schizophrenic.
9. This petition is accordingly allowed, the order Annexure P-7 is quashed and a direction is issued that the petitioner will be paid disability pension on account of Schizophrenia. It is further directed that the respondents shall compute and make the payment of the arrears to the petitioner within a period of six months from the date that a certified copy thereof is supplied to them. There will be no order as to costs.