The main legal point established is that disabilities occurring after years of active service in the army and assessed at a certain percentage can be deemed attributable to army service, entitling the personnel to disability pension.

1. Petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondent Union of India to release disability pension in his favour.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was recruited as Sepoy in Indian army in the year 1971. At the time of his recruitment, which was done after proper medical check up by the concerned army authorities, he was found hale and hearty. It is stated that in the year 1978-79, when he was posted to ERE duty Abhor Mandi Punjab in 16 Inf. Division Camp, he developed the disease namely Neurosis, as a result of which, he was admitted to Military Hospital, Abhor Mandi, from where he was referred to Military Hospital, Chandigarh. As the petitioners condition did not improve, he was thereafter referred to Psychiatric Hospital, Chandigarh, where he remained under treatment for about nine months. The petitioner thereafter was examined by the Medical Board and discharged from service on medical grounds on 7th of Jan80. The above disability of the petitioner was assessed at 20%.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the disability from which he suffered and which led to his discharge from service occurred on account of stress and strain of army service, the same should have been treated as attributable to army service and as the said disability was assessed at 20%, he should have been paid the disability pension in terms of Regulation 173 of the Army Pension Regulations, 1961. It is stated that at the time of entry of the petitioner into service, the petitioner was not found suffering from any such disease and even for about eight years i.e. the period for which the petitioner remained in active service w.e.f. 1971 to 1978-79, there were no signs of the disability called Neurosis and it was only during the posting of the petitioner at Abhor Mandi Punjab in 16 Inf. Division Camp, that he developed the said disease on account of stress and strain of army service. It is thus submitted that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for disability pension by the army authorities on the ground that the disability of the petitioner is neither aggravated nor attributable to army service, is not in accordance with the law and the rules governing the field.

4. On notice, respondents have filed counter stating therein that the Medical Board has expressed its opinion regarding non aggravation of the disability of the petitioner by army service after proper check up of the petitioner and taking all the relevant factors into consideration, and therefore, the said decision of the Board should not be interfered with. It is stated that, no doubt, the disability of the petitioner was assessed at 20% for two years, but the said disability namely Neurosis (Hysteria) 300(6), was found not attributable to army service, and as such, the claim of the petitioner for grant of disability pension has been rightly rejected by PCDA(P), Allahabad to which authority, the claim of the petitioner was forwarded. It is thus stated that the petitioner cannot have any grievance.

5. The question as to whether the disability suffered by an army personnel which leads to his discharge from service would be a disability attributable to or aggravated by military service when no mention of it is made at the time of his enrolment was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case reported as Darshana Devi v. Union of India and ors, 2008(1) SLJ 1. After taking note of the various judicial precedents on the subject, in para 8 of the judgment in the aforementioned case, it was held as under:-

"8. Therefore, from the judicial precedents referred to above, it can safely be held that if there is no mention regarding a disease or disablement at the time of entry of an army personnel into service, then the disability on account of which the concerned army personnel is boarded out of service would be deemed to have occurred due to hazards of army service ................"

6. In the present case, the petitioner was enrolled in the army in the year 1971. As noticed abo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document