K. RAMAMOORTHY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

"it is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon ble Court may kindly be pleased to:- i) Issue appropriate writ/directions/orders in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents for quashing the impugned decision of the respondents whereby the petitioner was denied his disability pension which was duly recommended by the Medical Board at the time of invaliding out the petitioner from the service on 08. 9. 1995. ii) To direct the respondents so as to reconsider their recommendations with regard to admissibility of Medical Pension to the petitioner considering the invaliding disease on account of which the petitioner suffered disability was attributable to the service and also was aggravated by the service keeping in view the nature of duties of the petitioner. "

( 2 ) THE facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition can be noticed in the following terms: On the 11th of October, 1984, the petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Air Force as an airman. He was medically found fit. His character had been assessed as an exemplary and his proficiency in professional trade had been assessed to be exceptional. In 1992, he had some ailment referring to sleeplessness. He was given treatment and he was again serving. On the 25th of February, 1994, he was posted at Air Force Station Yelhanka. On the 8th of September, 1995, he was medically boarded out of service. On the 2nd of July, 1996, the Air Force Record Office sent the papers to the authority concerned for payment of disability pension. By order dated 28. 10. 1996, the CCDA (Pension), Allahabad decided that the petitioner was not entitled to disability pension as he was not suffering from any ailment which could be attributed to military service, nor did it existed before or during military service. It had also been noted that the ailment was no aggravated by military service. The Medical Board gave its report on the 8th of July, 1995. In column No. 3d, it is stated "constitutional disease not connected with service".

( 3 ) THE Medical Board has not given any reasons and it has been pointed out time and again by this Court and by the Supreme Court that there must be reasoning on record to come to the conclusion that the ailment was not attributable to military service. The disability had been fixed at 60%. It is not disputed that the petitioner s record of service had been very exemplary and exceptional, as I noticed above.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents had not considered the matter in its proper perspective and the ailment suffered by the petitioner was certainly attributable to the military service, for the petitioner had been working without any complaint whatsoever for eight years or more.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the-petitioner submitted that the petitioner sent an appeal to the appellate authority, the Ministry of Defence, on the 17th of January, 1997 and the Ministry had not cared to disposed of the appeal, and therefore, the petitioner was forced to file this writ petition on the 25thof July, 1998.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the ailment suffered by the petitioner was not attributable to the military service. The Medical Board had expressed its opinion:-

"this 27 Yrs old Cpl, having 10 Yrs of service, is an old case of unspecified psychosis. The onset was in 1992,______ (not legible) sleeplessness, restlessness, and _____________ (not legible)________ ETCs and drugs. This yr he had an _______ psychotic breakdown for which he had to be hospitalised. In spite of treatment, he has residual psychotic creatures like effective blunting, apathy, social withdrawal and loss of insight. He has also run away from the ward. Keeping the foregoing in mind, it is not felt that he is not fitforfurther military duties. Recommended invalidment in Med _at EEE (pay ). "

( 7 ) THE Medical Board is expected, in law, to giv

Click Here to Read the rest of this document