HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 86 of 2006 The Union of India & others ……..Appellants Versus N arendra Singh Negi …….Respondent Mrs. Anjali Bhargava, Standing Counsel for Union of India/appellants. Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for the respondent. Dated: February 28, 2011 Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Barin Ghosh,C.J. (Oral) CLMA No. 8643/2010 (Delay Condonation Application) AND MCC No. 881/2010 (Restoration Application The appeal preferred by Union of India has been dismissed for non-prosecution. Accordingly, an application has been filed for restoration. There has been 378 days’ delay in preferring the restoration application and, accordingly, an application for condonation of delay in preferring the restoration application has been filed. 2. In the restoration application, it has been stated that the reason for dismissal of the appeal for non- prosecution was failure on the part of Union of India in reengaging the learned Assistant Solicitor General, at the relevant time. In other words, Union of India, being aware that an appeal has been preferred by it and the same is pending consideration, neither bothered to depute a duly authorized representative to press the appeal and, at the same time, did not bother to appoint an Advocate to urge the case on its behalf. Only when after dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution, a Contempt Petition was filed, Union of India woke up. We feel that in the 2 circumstances no ground has been made out for either restoration of the appeal or for condonation of delay in preferring the restoration application. 3. However, before doing so, we have also looked into the merits of the matter. The writ petitioner-respondent was discharged by the Medical Board. The reason for discharge was a Disease called Schizophrenia. It was reported by the Medical Board that the respondent-writ petitioner suffered 60% disability by reason of the said disease. The Counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India in these applications referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, rendered in Appeal (civil) 762/2001 “Union of India & others Vs. Keshar Singh” for the proposition that Schizophrenia would not attract disability pension, since there also the respondent was suffering from Schizophrenia and that was the reason for his discharge and despite such discharge, the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not accept the judgments rendered by the High Court directing payment of disability pension to the respondent. 4. In that judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court found, by reading the Rules, what are the obligations of the Medical Board at or immediately before discharge of a Military personnel. They found that in accordance with the applicable Rules, the Medical Board has certain obligations to be discharged. They found, on facts, that the Medical Board, after having had discharged such obligations, in no uncertain terms, reported in their report that illness suffered by the respondent was not attributable to Military Service. It was not reported Schizophrenia, as such, is not attributable to Military 3 Service. At least, there is no such finding in the judgment. The medical report reported that Schizophrenia that the respondent before Hon’ble Supreme Court suffered was not attributable to Military Service. 5. In the instant case, it is not known whether the discharge was due to the disease mentioned as Schizophrenia was attributable to Military Service or not, inasmuch as, the Medical Board in the discharge certificate did not say that the disease, causing discharge of the respondent herein, was not attributable to Military Service. There is, therefore, no merit also in the appeal. 6. We, accordingly, dismiss the application for condonation of delay in preferring the restoration application. Consequently, the restoration application also stands dismissed. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 28.02.2011 NCM: