Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
A.N.Varma, J.
EX SEPOY DIGVIJAY SINGH 2793142A
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
Decided On : 12 April 2005
Writ Petition 4892 (S/s) Of 2001
DISABILITY PENSION - MILITARY SERVICE - Regulation 173 - Army Rule 13(3)(III)(iii) - [Regulation 173] - The court discussed Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for the army, which provides for the grant of disability pension to an individual who is invalided from service on account of a disability attributable to or aggravated by Military service. The court also referred to Army Rule 13(3)(III)(iii) which was used to discharge the petitioner from Military service. The court analyzed the petitioner's claim for disability pension in light of these provisions and relevant case law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former Sepoy in the Military, sought disability pension after being discharged from service due to a psychiatric ailment. His claim was rejected on the grounds that the disability was not attributable to Military service.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the rejection of the petitioner's claim for disability pension, as it found that the disability was not attributable to or aggravated by Military service.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's psychiatric ailment was attributable to or aggravated by his Military service, thus entitling him to disability pension.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for the army and Army Rule 13(3)(III)(iii) to determine the eligibility for disability pension. It also considered relevant case law to establish the principles for granting disability pension based on the attributable or aggravated nature of the disability.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the rejection of the petitioner's claim for disability pension.
( 1 ) THROUGH the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the orders dated 15. 6. 1999 as well dated 9. 1. 2001, as contained in Annexures 4-A and 8 to the writ petition, whereby his claim for disability pension has been negatived by the opposite party No. 4 and appeal preferred against the same has also been dismissed vide Annexure 8.
( 2 ) THE petitioner was enrolled as a Sepoy in Maratha Light Infantry Regiment on 26. 2. 1996 for 15 years plus 2 years as initial engagement. His training commenced on 8. 4. 1996 and after successful completion of which he was medically examined and was declared in the category "aye".
( 3 ) ON 28. 8. 1997 he was admitted in Military Hospital, Faizabad, for psychiatric examination and follow up. Thereafter, he was transferred to Military Hospital, Jabalpur, where he remained admitted nearly for a month. On 19. 12. 1997 the Senior Advisor in the department of Psychiatry is said to have told the petitioner go to home and sleep. He categorised the petitioner in medical category "eee", i. e. "unfit for military service".
( 4 ) ON 13. 4. 1998 the petitioner is said to have submitted an application to the Commandant, military Hospital, Jabalpur, stating therein that he was not suffering from any mental ailment and that he may be examined by a Senior Authority. The petitioner was again referred to Military hospital (CC), Lucknow. The Consultant in Psychiatry did not revise the finding given by the doctor at Jabalpur and he was sent back to Military Hospital, Jabalpur. On 29. 6. 1998 the petitioner was discharged from service under Army Rule 13 (3) (III) (iii) as invalid out of service.
( 5 ) HAVING been so discharged from Military service, the petitioner made an application before the opposite parties for grant of disability pension. The said application was rejected by the opposite party No. 4 on 29. 6. 1999 vide Annexure 4-A on the ground that the disability from which the petitioner suffered was not attributable to Military services and therefore, under the rules the same was not admissible to him.
( 6 ) BEING aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal. The appellate authority upon consideration of the material on record and after careful consideration rejected his appeal. The letter of communication with regard to rejection of his appeal has been filed as Annexure 8.
( 7 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. N. Mishra as well as Sri K. D. Nag, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.
( 8 ) THE submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that at the time when the petitioner was enrolled in Military service, he was thoroughly examined and was categorised in medical category "aye". The ascent of ailment was in August 1997 and was aggravated due to stress and strain in Military service, therefore, according to him it has to be presumed that the ailment was on account of, by the stress and strain undergone by him during Military service.
( 9 ) IN this connection he placed reliance upon Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for the army. According to him an Army personnel is entitled to disability pension if he/she is invalided from the service on account of a disability which is attributable to, or aggravated by Military service. As per his submission since the ailment from which he was suffering was aggravated on account of stress and strain in Military service, therefore, he was entitled for disability pension and the opposite parties in rejecting the same has committed a manifest illegality. Regulation 173 of the Regulations reads as follows :
"173. Unless otherwise specifically provided, a disability pension may be granted to an individual who is invalided from service on account of a disability which is attributable to, or aggravated by Military service and is assessed at 20 per cent or over. "
( 10 ) THE question whether a disability is attributable to or aggravated by Military service shall be determined under the ru
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
