Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J
C.C.BABU – Appellant
Versus
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT – Respondent
OP/25968/2002
Disability - Pension Claim - Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules - Rule 3-A, 3(4)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a member of Assam Rifles, was denied a disability pension for 'Psychosis,' which he claimed developed due to service conditions. His medical condition was identified after approximately eight years, leading to his discharge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the medical board did not sufficiently establish that the petitioner’s condition was not attributable to service. The rules required a liberal interpretation in favor of the claimant, particularly since no record of the disease existed at enlistment.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's 'Psychosis' was attributable to service, thus entitling him to a disability pension under the relevant rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The disease should be deemed to arise from service if no prior note of it exists upon enlistment, and the due benefit of reasonable doubt must be granted to the claimant as per the guidelines.
Final Decision: The petitioner is entitled to disability pension, and the respondents are directed to sanction the same with arrears.
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for disability pension, this original petition has been filed. The petitioner was refused the pension as per Ext.P4 on the ground that his disease was not attributable and not aggravated due to the service conditions of Assam Rifles service.
2. The petitioner was enlisted into the service of Assam Rifles on
26.11.1986. The same is a para military service. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of recruitment, he was subjected to intense medical examination and the authorities were satisfied about this physical and mental fitness and that it was under this medical fitness certificate that the petitioner was enrolled in the service of Assam Rifles.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the personnel of Assam Rifles have been mainly performing their duties in the north eastern boundary of the country and they have to resist extremists and insurgents. The deployment of the forces were usually in the sensitive places. The conditions of life there gave high mental tension and physical exertion to the jawans. The border areas are difficult terrains which are inhospitable OP 25968/2002 -2-
with uncongenial climatic conditions. Because of the threat of offensives from the enemies and insurgents and other extremists within the country, jawans were being put to high risk and tension. It is submitted that petitioner was also operating in these areas in such atmosphere and thus gradually developed a psychic disorder.
4. He was subjected to medial treatment in a hospital and on
17.10.1997 a Medical Board considered his case and he was recommended for low medical category as EEE (PSY) for two years. This preliminary Medical Board also suggested for another Medical Board on 8.9.1997. They directed that the petitioner should not be posted to out posts and the principal disability noted was “Psychosis”. Ext.P1 is the true copy of the proceedings of the Medical Board. Later on, the final medical board recommended his discharge from service. Thus, he was discharged from service on 31.5.2000 owing to the disability “Psychosis”. On that day he had completed 13 years, six months and six days service. Ext.P2 is the discharge certificate. He was allowed only the invalid pension. Even though he filed a representation, Ext.P3 claiming the disability pension, that was rejected by Ext.P4 stating that his disease was not attributable or aggravated due to service conditions of the Assam Rifles Service. Even though he filed an appeal, Ext.P5, nothing materialised and hence the original petition has been filed.
OP 25968/2002 -3-
5. According to the petitioner, the view taken by the second respondent in Ext.P4 is not correct and the disease “Psychosis” has been developed due to the highly sensitive service conditions. It is pointed out that his disability was attributable to his tenure in the service. It is also pointed out that he is entitled for pension going by the various provisions of Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules .
6. The respondents have filed a statement and a counter affidavit disputing the claim of the petitioner. The stand taken in them consistently is that the petitioner showed an abnormal behaviour and anxiety for the first time when he reported for duty after his leave during the year 1994. The case of the petitioner was brought under medical attention in August 1994. The steps taken to treat him have been explained in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit and Ext.R1(a) proceedings of the Medical Board has also been produced. It is pointed out that his case was being reviewed from time to time and treatment was being continued. Ext.R1(c) is the opinion of Classified Specialist (Psychiatry) of 155 Base Hospital, Tezpur. His percentage of disability was fixed at 60% and the Medical Board recommended his case fit to be released in low medical category BEE (Permanent). It is averred in the counter affidavit that a disablement shall be accepted as due
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
