Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ex-Naik Pritam Singh vs Union Of India on 28 November, 2000
Author: R.L. Anand
Bench: R.L. Anand
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J.
1. Ex-Naik Pritam Singh has filed the preseni writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Union of India for the issuance of a writ or direction to respondent to grant him the benefit of disability pension as he-has suffered the disability when he was serving the army in terms of paragraph 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army.
2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner was enrolled in the army as Driver on 23.12.1975. In June, 1990 the petitioner was detailed on a convoy duty as driver of a vehicle which was going to Leh and Upshi-Manali road for winter stocking of ration and stores for troops. The convoy halted for night at Parso in high altitude. The petitioner at nigh suddenly became unconscious. He was given emergency medical treatment. He regained consciousness after half an hour. Next day he was evacuated to Pathankot where he was admitted in the military hospital. The petitioner was evacuated to Army Hospital, Delhi where the brain surgery was done. In January 1991, the petitioner was placed in low medical category "CEE" temporary for 6/12 months. In the month of September, 1991, the petitioner was medically examined by the Medical Board and again the petitioner was placed in low medical category "CEE" (Physical) temporary for six months. In the month of May, 1992 another medical board was constituted which examined the petitioner and he was placed in low medical category "CEE" permanent. In the month of December, 1995 on ac-count of his permanent medical category, the petitioner was discharged from the army and his disability was assessed at 35 per cent. The petitioner's claim is that he is entitled to disability pension because he was boarded out from the service when he was serving the army and the disease is attributable to his army service. The petitioner further alleges that CCDA (Pension) vide letter dated 20,9.1996 intimated him regarding the rejection of his disability pension as per Annexure P-1. He filed an appeal in October 1996 and the appeal was also dismissed in December 1999 vide Annexure P-3. In this manner, the petitioner has sought quashment of the orders Annexures P-1 and P-3 and has prayed for the release of the disability pension.
3. Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondent which filed the written statement anti denied the allegations. The stand taken up by the respondent is that the petitioner was not boarded out from service on account of medical unfitness but the petitioner had completed the contractual terms of 20 years in the year 1995 and, therefore, he has been discharged. It is a case of simple discharge from the army and in these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to disability pension. Moreover, the disease suffered by the petitioner is not aggravated or attributable to the army service. Rather it is constitutional.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case.
5. My attention has been invited to Annexure P-3. From this document, it is clear that the petitioner was released from service on account of invaliding disease i.e. "Para Sagital Meningioma (OPTD)". Thus, there is no merit in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the petitioner was not boarded out on account of the medical ground. There is another angle of vision in looking to the defence of the petitioner. The petitioner could serve even beyond 20 years but he could not serve the department because he was released from service on account of the invaliding disease. Therefore, it can safely be concluded and held that the petitioner was boarded out from the service on account of medical ground and not on completion of the term.
6. With regard to the second point whether the disease is constitutional or it is attributable to the army service, I am of the opinion that it is attributable to the army service. The petitioner was medically examined at the time of his entry into service and he was placed in category "A". He was examined from time to time. It is the case of the petitioner that he served at the high altitude. Such like brain disease or deformity can conveniently be suffered by the Jawans when they discharge their duties at difficult tracks.
7. The learned Counsel for the respondent relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Union of India v. Baljit Singh, 1997(1) SLR 98; 1997(1) SCT 386 (SC) and submits that the initial onus is upon the petitioner to show that he lias suffered the disability when he was serving the army. The cited judgment is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. A perusal of annexure P-3 prima facie suggests that the disability suffered by the petitioner was due to the fact that he was serving the army. The factum of proving the disability can be established either by direct evidence or by inferences and in these circumstances, it is fully established that the petitioner suffered the disability when he was serving the army and that he was boarded out from the service on account of medical ground. The disability is more than 20%.
In these circumstances, the writ petition is allowed by setting the orders Annexures P-1 and P-3 and directions are given to the respondent-authority to release the benefit of disability pension to the petitioner within three months from the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12%. This benefit of disability pension shall be released with effect from 1.1.1996. There would be no order as to costs. The petitioner shall appear before the Re- survey Medical Board as and when called upon by the respondent-authority.
8. Petition allowed.