SWP/1606/2006 of SANJEET KUMAR Vs U.O.I. AND ORS. on 17 November 2009

1) Whether approved for reportingin Press/Journal/ MediaYes/No11)Whether to be reportedin Digest/JournalYes/No The petitioner, Sanjeet Kumar, was enrolled in the Army|on November 17, 1986. During the course of his employment,|he was found to have suffered disability of “—RHEGMATOGENOUS RETINAL DETACHMENT (RT) EYE for which he.was downgraded to Low Medical Category CEE (Temporary),|which on review was up-graded to Medical Category BEE.(Permanent) by a Medical Board, held at Command Hospital,|Western Command. It was later in October, 1998, that he was|found by the Medical Board, held at Military Hospital,Ahmedabad, a case of “UNSPECIFIED PSYCHOSIS’. He,|however, continued to remain in Low Medical Category CEE.(Temporary) from April, 1999. The Competent Authority, there-after approved the petitioner's discharge from service w.e.f..July 31, 2001. Petitioner's request to serve the Army tillcompletion of his Fifteen Years of Service, was later accepted,cancelling nis Discnarge. Ine Medical Board had assessed|

petitioners over all disability at 35% lLe., “RI EYE RETINAL.DETACHMENT|(OPTD)361 |AND|UNSPECIFIED|PSYOHOSIS-298° at 15% and 20% respectively. |

The petitioner was, there-after invalided out, but without|grant of the Disability Pension.

He has filed this Writ Petition, seeking quashing of the)Principal, CDA (Pension) Allahabad's Communication No. G-3/67/03/1-2002 dated 3-4-2002 rejecting his case for grant ofDisability Pension, besides seeking a Command to the.respondents to consider, sanction, release and pay him the|Disability Pension from the date of his discharge, along with.arrears. Besides, the Disability Pension, he claims capitalized|value of commuted pension too.

The case set up by the petitioner in the Writ Petition, isthat he suffered 'UN-SPECIFIED PSYCHOSIS' because of the.‘Stress and Strain of the Army Service, and was thus entitled to.Disability Pension, under Regulation 1/73 of the PensionRegulations, read with Rule 7 (b) of the Entitlement Rules.

The respondents’ contest the petitioners claim toDisability Pension, on the ground that the ‘UN-SPECIFIED|PSYCHOSIS’, from which the petitioner suffered, was neither|attributable to nor aggravated by the Military Service, and he.was not thus entitled to the grant of Disability Pension under,the Pension Regulations.

to support their case, the respondents nave placed on|records, the copies of the Medical Board proceedings, held.from time to time, in respect of the petitioner, besides the|communications, addressed by the Officer In-charge, Records.intimating the petitioner the rejection of his Disability Pension.case, and a copy of the Entitlement Rules.|

The question that falls for determination, in this Writ

Petition, is as to whether or not the disability for which the.petitioner was iInvalided out, was attributable to and aggravatedby the Military Service.

Perusal of the opinion of the Medial Board, held inrespect of the petitioner on April, 10, 2001 indicates that|the petitioner's disability did not exist at the time of his.entry into Army Service and that the disabilities hadoccurred due to ‘Stress and Strain’ of the Military Service.

The respondents have not placed any document on|records, on the basis whereof, It may be said that the disability,suffered by the petitioner was neither attributable to nor.aggravated by the Military Service.

According to the Classification of Diseases, Indicated In|Annexure-|I]to Appendix-llof.the|Entitlement.Rules.‘PSYCHOSIS’, Is indicated as one of the diseases, affected by"Stress and Strain’..

The stand taken by the respondents, In their reply to theWrit Petition, is, therefore, not supported by the material, which.they have placed on the records.

Tne material placed by the respondents, on the otnerhand, substantiates the case set up by the petitioner in his Writ,Petition that he had suffered disability because of the ‘Stress_and Strain of the Army Service, for which he was Invalided out. |

In view of the above, it is thus apparent that the petitioner|

nas been denied Disability Pension, without any cause,|compelling him to approach this Court for redressal of his.grievance. Respondents, are therefore, additionally liable to.compensate the petitioner, for the delay, which has occasionedbecause of the unwarranted rejection of his case for grant ofDisability Pension, for no reasons at all.

In the absence of any opinion of the Medical Board,|

Supported by reasons, that the disability suffered by the.petitioner, during the course of his service, was _ neitheattributed to nor aggravated by the Military Service, thepetitioner could not be denied grant of Disability Pension and.other service benefits to which he may be entitled to under theRules. —

Respondent No.2's Communications impugned in theWrit Petition, aenying Disability Pension to the petitioner are|thus arbitrary and illegal. These are, therefore, required to be.quashed commanding the respondents to consider petitioner s case for award of Disability Pension in accordance with the.rules, along with arrears.

ThisWrit.Petition,therefore,succeedsandis,accordingly, allowed with costs quantified at Rs 20,000/-. By a.Writ of Certiorari, Principal CDA (Pension) Allahabads_Communication No. G-3/6/7/03/1-2002 dated 3-4-2002 andOfficer-In-Charge Records Communication No. Pen/D.103/70/3988289/16 of April 22, 2002, are, accordingly, quashed, And a.Command issued to the respondents to consider the|petitioners case for grant of Disability Pension under Rules_along with arrears accrued thereon, within a period of two.months. Petitioners case for grant of commuted Pension shallalso be considered by the respondents under rules and_appropriate orders passed thereon within the aforementioned|period.

(J.P. SINGH)JUDGE.

JAMMU,November 17, 2009.“Maini® Secy.