IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 1003 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 18, 2010 Union of India and others …Appellants Versus Manjit Singh …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Dr. Amarpreet Sandhu, Advocate, for the appellants. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent, is directed against the judgment dated 21.7.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 5409 of 2008, allowing the writ petition by granting the benefit of disability pension to the petitioner-respondent. It has come on record that the claim of the petitioner-respondent for disability pension was denied on the ground that the problem of delusional disorder was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service and it was constitutional in nature and not related to service. However, the learned Single Judge after noticing the factual matrix has come to the conclusion that the petitioner developed the problem after almost three years of joining the Army in the year 1997. It has also been specifically noticed by the learned LPA No. 1003 of 2010 (O&M) Single Judge that the Army service carries great stress and strains, especially when the Army personnel are deployed during war but also at the time of law and order problem and other natural calamities along with the border areas. Their life is full of stress and strains. The disease of delusional disorder is not unknown in such cases. Learned Single Judge has further specifically recorded a finding that at the time of entry into service of the petitioner-respondent no such disease was detected by the Medical Board. The learned Single Judge placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of Delhi High Court rendered in the case of A.J.S. Chaudhary v. Union of India, 1999 (1) RSJ 778 and another judgment rendered in the case of Surjit Singh v. The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, 1999 (4) RSJ 385 and even quoted the relevant paras of the said judgments to arrive at the final conclusion that the petitioner-respondent is entitled to disability pension. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants at a considerable length we find that there is no legal infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference by the Letters Patent Bench. Learned counsel has not been able to raise any substantial issue nor has she cited any law contrary to the one on which reliance has been placed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, there is no merit in the instant appeal warranting admission. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) August 18, 2010 JUDGE 2 LPA No. 1003 of 2010 (O&M) Pkapoor 3