Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 8358
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rekha Palli, Shalinder Kaur, JJ
EX SGT LAXMI NARAYAN PANDEY RETD – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS – Respondent
W.P.(C)-16684/2023
Dr. Abhay Kant Upadhyay, Adv., Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, CGSC with Mr.Srish Kumar Mishra, Mr.Alexander Mathai Paikaday, Advs., Mr.Kautilya Birat, GP.
Disability pension claims must demonstrate that the disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service, with medical opinions holding primacy in such determinations.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Armed Forces Tribunal Act - Dismissal of Original Application for disability pension - Petitioner claimed that Schizophrenia was attributable to military service - Tribunal found no connection between disability and service - Medical Board's opinion deemed authoritative - Petitioner failed to prove entitlement for pension. (Paras 1, 2, 3, 12, 27)
(B) Disability Pension - Conditions for grant - Disability must be attributable to or aggravated by military service - Medical opinion holds primacy in determining connection with service - Mere manifestation of a disease during service does not suffice. (Paras 10, 18, 20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a former IAF Radio Technician, developed Schizophrenia after joining service, but the Medical Board opined it was not attributable to military service. His claim for disability pension was rejected by the Tribunal. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the Medical Board's opinion that the disability was constitutional and not connected to service. (Paras 27)
Issues: Whether the onset of Schizophrenia was attributable to military service and if the petitioner was entitled to disability pension. (Paras 13, 27)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Medical Board's opinion is authoritative, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate that his disability was connected to military service. (Paras 27)
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
SHALINDER KAUR, J
1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 21.07.2023 passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi („Tribunal‟) in Original Application („OA‟) No. 1814/2019. Vide the impugned order, the petitioner‟s OA was dismissed by the learned Tribunal by holding that „Schizophrenia‟, the invaliding disability from which the petitioner was suffering, was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.
2. One may recite the brief facts of the case by beginning to note that the petitioner joined the Indian Air Force („IAF‟) as a Radio Technician on 11.05.1989 and was posted at 43 Wireless Experimental Unit („WEU‟) (B) in Chouhtan, Barmer, Rajasthan. In November, 1992, the petitioner, for the first time, reported uneasiness and sleep disturbances and had difficulty concentrating on his assigned tasks and duties. Initially, he was admitted to 7 Air Force Hospital („AFH‟) on 26.12.1992 with the above symptoms. The petitioner was again medically examined on 15.09.1993 by the Specialist (Psychiatric) Medical Hospital, Jodhpur when he was diagnosed with „Schizophrenia‟ and temporarily downgraded to low medical category: CEE (T-24) (PSY) for ID - SCHIZOPHRENIA vide AFMSF-15 dated 15.09.1993. As he was found to be still suffering from „Schizophrenia‟, in the subsequent Medical Boards, he was on 15.02.2006 placed in a permanent low medical category: A4G4 (P) (PSY) in which category he remained till he was produced before the Release Medical Board („RMB‟) held at HQ SWAC (U). On 14.10.2008, the RMB opined that the petitioner be released in low medical category; A4G4(P) (PSY) on account of the disability of Schizophrenia which was assessed at 30 percent for life and was held to be neither attributable nor aggravated by Air Force service. The opinion of the RMB was approved by Deputy Principal Medical Officer („PMO‟), HQ, South Western Air Command („SWAC‟) IAF on 21.10.2008 and thereafter, by Air Officer Commander („AOC‟), Air Force Record Office („AFRO‟). Consequently, the petitioner, was after rendering service for 20 years and 20 days, discharged from service on 31.05.2009 with 30 percent disability.
3. The petitioner‟s claim for disability pension was however, rejected. The petitioner, therefore, preferred an appeal on 15.07.2019, which was followed by legal notice dated 13.08.2019, in response whereto, his appeal was, vide order dated 17.09.2019, also rejected. The petitioner assailed the rejection orders dated 04.11.2008 and 17.09.2009, before the learned Tribunal by way of OA No. 1814 of 2019.
4. The OA has been dismissed by the Tribunal vide impugned order dated 21.07.2023. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court praying for directions to the respondents to accept his disability as being attributable to or aggravated by military service and grant him „invalid pension‟ at the rate of 30 percent, by rounding off the same to 50 percent, for life with arrears for 3 years prior to date of filing of the OA.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
5. Dr. Abhay Kant Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was medically fit and in good health at the time of his induction in the IAF without any disability being recorded by the respondents. He had undergone two years of rigorous military training and successfully passed the physical fitness tests. After thorough medical examinations at the Training Centre, he was assigned to various field and peace Units as required by the respondents. He submitted that for the initial three and a half years, the petitioner in his annual medical examinations, was always placed under Medical Category A4G1, indicating his continued fitness for military service. However, owing to environmental stress and organizational pressures, the petitioner developed „Schizophrenia‟, in November, 1992 which disability persisted throughout his serv
