Honble BHANDARI, J.—By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the orders dated 21.8.1996, 16.10.1998 and 17.4.2000 whereby and whereunder the petitioners request for grant of disability pension was declined. Prayer of the petitioner is to seek disability pension w.e.f. 8.3.1986 along with interest and compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-.

(2). It is contended that the petitioner was enrolled in Army on 24.12.1994 in medical category `A as he was fully fit and did not suffer from any disease. The petitioner was thereafter invalided from services w.e.f. 7.3.1996, after determining him in medical category `E due to Affective Psychosis with 40% disability. Petitioners disability pension claim was rejected firstly vide order dated 21.8.1996 on the ground that the petitioners disability is neither attributable to nor aggravated due to military services. Petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order, but the appeal thereupon was also rejected. Petitioner thereafter preferred another appeal to higher authority, but the said appeal was also rejected.

(3). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that denial of disability pension to the petitioner is wholly illegal in view of the fact that petitioner having sustained crush injury of middle finger, was admitted in hospital and while treating the same, it was found that petitioner is suffering from Affective Psychosis and thereupon he was invalided from service. It is also contended that the aforesaid disease was due to stress and strain thereby the petitioner is entitled for disability pension as per Rule 173 of the Pension Regulation for Army (hereinafter referred to as `the Regulation, for shot). It is urged that as per Appendix-II, Rule 4, 7(a) and (b), petitioner having suffered from Affective Psychosis, was required to be extended benefit of disability pension, inasmuch as, opinion of the medical board to hold that the disease is not attributable to or aggravated due to military services, is not correct as medical board failed to give detail opinion so as to hold it to be a case of constitutional disorder. Referring to the rules as well as several judgments on the issue, the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner is to accepted the writ petition and grant the relief as prayed therein.

The judgments so cited by learned counsel for the petitioner would be referred and discussed in the latter part of this judgment.

(4). Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the claim of the petitioner for grant of benefit of disability pension is not acceptable in view of the opinion of the medical board, it is a case where disease was not attributable to and aggravated due to the military services so as to attract provisions of Section 173 of the Regulation. It is further urged that Appendix-II, Rules 4, 7(a) and 7(b) are required to be read in totality and not in isolation so as to claim benefit of disability pension. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has not even challenged the opinion of the medical board, thus in the absence of a challenge to the opinion of the medical board, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Referring to the prayer clause, it is specifically shown that there is no prayer in the prayer clause to the effect that the opinion of the medical board should be held to be improper, incorrect or invalid either due to the procedural irregularity or otherwise. Referring to judgments of the Honble Apex Court, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in the absence of a challenge to the opinion of medical board, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

(5). I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully.

(6). The facts which not in dispute are that the petitioner was enrolled in Army on 24.12.1994 on finding fully fit and was not noted to have suffered any disease. While the petitioner was under basic military training with Rajputana Rifles Regime

Click Here to Read the rest of this document