Entitlement to disability pension for army personnel suffering from disabilities attributable to military service, as per Para 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army and Rule 38 of the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules.

1. Petitioner was enrolled in the army as Senior Field Assistant (Medico) on 5th of Dec 90. In the year 1994, he was transferred to Leh where he fell sick and was admitted in the Army Hospital Leh on 22nd of Aug 94. He was discharged from the said hospital on 1st of Sept 94 and was placed under C&E category temporarily. The petitioner thereafter in view of his ailment was transferred from Leh to Rajouri w.e.f. Ist Jan 95 as he was categorized unfit for posting in a high altitude. Petitioner was then transferred to Poonch on 7th Oct 98 where he again fell sick and was referred to the Standard Medical Board of Government Medical College, Jammu on 23rd of Aug 99. The Medical Board of the Government Medical College, Jammu, recommended that the petitioner may be referred for further diagnosis to PGI Chandigarh or AIIMS, New Delhi. The petitioner was then referred to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi where it was detected as a case of Paranoid Schizophrenia. The petitioner was declared unfit to continue in service.

2. The wife of the petitioner earlier preferred a writ petition bearing OWP No. 968/96 which was decided on 9th Feb 98 with a direction that in case the husband of the petitioner is interested in continuing in service, he must report at his place of posting immediately and cooperate with the respondents to get him treated and if he does so, the respondents shall post him suitably and besides affording best of medical cover shall put at his disposal all possible facilities which are congenial to his mental health. Thereafter the petitioner resumed his duties and his case was referred to the Medical Board of Government Medical College, Jammu. The said Board recommended that the petitioner may be referred either to Chandigarh or New Delhi for further check up. The said Board also opined that the petitioner at present is unfit to continue in service. On the basis of said medical report, the petitioner was discharged from service w.e.f. 18th of Aug 2000.

3. The petitioner impugned the aforesaid order of discharge in writ petition bearing OWP No. 712/2000, which came to be disposed of vide order dt. 30th March 01, with the following observations:--

".....The respondents would accordingly arrange another medical examination of the petitioner. The Medical Boards opinion in this regard would govern further action required to be taken in this case. As such order dated 18th Aug 2000 shall not be given effect to. Relationship of Master and servant shall be kept intact. In case the medical opinion goes in favour of the petitioner then appropriate action be taken by the respondents and the petitioner be not compelled to approach this court again. Expenses of this medical examination shall be borne as per Government Rules. Let the medical examination be done and completed and final order be passed within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is made available to the respondents by the petitioner..."

4. Thereafter the petitioner was subjected to medical examination at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi and the medical board of the said hospital was of the opinion that the petitioner is suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia with border line personality trade. It is after the said opinion expressed by the medical board of the said Hospital, the petitioner has been discharged from service vide order dt. 30th July 01 with retrospective effect i.e. 18th of Aug 2000. It is this order which is impugned in this writ petition.

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that as this court vide judgment dt. 30th March 01, passed in OWP No. 712/2000 had directed that the relationship of master and servant be kept intact till a medical opinion is given by the fresh medical board to be constituted by respondents, and therefore, the order dt. 30th July 01 could not have been given effect to retrospectively. It is further stated that the petitioner has neither been given the pensionary benefits nor his claim for disability pension has been c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document