Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prem Singh Ex. Ck (S) I vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 22 December, 1995
Equivalent citations: (1996)113PLR15
JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Navy on August 31, 1984. On September 3, 1990, he was invalided out of the service as he was suffering from "Myotonia Dystrophica". The petitioner's claim for disability pension having been rejected by the respondents, he has approached this court through the present writ petition.
2. Counsel for the parties have been heard. Admittedly, a person who is invalided out of service on account of disability "which is attributable to or aggravated by service and is assessed at twenty percent or over" is entitled to the grant of pension. Regulation 8 in Appendix V of the Navy (Pension) Regulation, 1964, inter alia provided that a disease "which has led to an individual's discharge or death will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service if no note of it was made at the time of individual's acceptance for naval service. However, if medical opinion holds, for reasons to be stated that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior to acceptance for service the disease will not be deemed to have arisen during service."
3. In view of the above provisions, a person who has been invalided out of service and in whose case, it has not been found that the disease Could not have been detected on medical examination prior to enrollment, is entitled to the grant of disability pension. However, the respondents seek to deny it on the basis of the opinion of the medical board, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure R-l with the written statement. This opinion was recorded by the Board on May 29, 1990. It has not been said that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination. Still further, the copy produced by the petitioner does not appear to be accurate. In paragraph 3 of this report, it has been inter alia observed as under:-
"The initial slit lamp examination of eyes on 20.11.1989 did not reveal any post capsular cataract but now when repeated on 29.3.1989 it shows posterior capsular denticular opacities."
Obviously, this is a mistake. If the initial examination had taken place on November 29, 1989, the second examination could not have been conduced on March 29, 1989. The fact remains that there is no finding that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination at the time of enrollment.
4. While interpreting similar provisions under the Army Pension Regulations, it has been held that a person who has been invalided out of service on account of physical disability, is normally entitled to the grant of pension unless it is found on medical examination that the disease could not have been detected at the time of enrollment. Reference in this behalf may be made to the decision in Union of India and other v. Shyam Lal Malhotra, 1995(2) R.S.J. 493. On principle, this case is clearly covered by the aforesaid decision.
5. In view of the above, the action of the respondents in declining invalidity pension to the petitioner is set aside. They are directed to reconsider the case and grant him pension w.e.f. the date of his invalidation from service. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.