IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8148 of 2004 RABINDRA KUMAR SINGH, son of Badan Singh, resident of village – Sandalpur, Post Office – Katsa, Police Station – Bheldi, District – Saran ……………….. Petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence (D-Pen-A), New Delhi, Pin – 110 011. 2. The C.D.A. (P), G-3, Section, Allahabad (U.P). 3. The Record Officer, Topkhana Abhilekh, Artillery Records Nasik Road Camp, Maharashtra. 4. The Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence ( D.Pen-A), New Delhi – 110 011. ………………… Respondents For the petitioner : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh. For the respondents : Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar. ----- 07. 21.01.2009 Writ application of the petitioner is for a direction upon the respondent Union of India to grant him disability pension since the Medical Board based on whose opinion he had been invalidated from service has judged his disability to the extent of 20 per cent, though no doubt the Medical Board was of the opinion that disability of psychosis is not attributable to military service. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is based on several decisions in this regard which have been produced for consideration of this Court, rendered in the case of Mahesh Prasad Mandal v. Union of India & ors [2000 (3) BLJ 98], Smt. Sona Devi v. Union of India & ors [2002 (1) PLJR 168] and Union of India & ors v. Braj Nandan Singh & another [2003 (3) PLJR 409]. It is urged that in similar circumstances and in absence of any categorical finding that petitioner was suffering from the disease at the time of entry in the service, any problem arising thereafter will have to be attributable to military service. Since disability of 20 per cent is not - 2 - disputed and that is the opinion of the Medical Board, then merely because Medical Board opines that disability is congenital and cannot be attributable to military service, the respondents have committed wrong by refusing disability pension. Learned counsel appearing for Union of India has filed a detailed counter affidavit and has submitted that neurosis can never be attributable to nor aggravated by military service. These are psychosis disability which a person suffers and a bigger manifestation of the same or its aggravation has led to the invalidation of the petitioner from service. Rule 173 of the Pension Regulations of Army 1961, on this issue, is quite categorical and the respondents have gone by the interpretation of the said rule. The submission of the learned counsel for Union of India is difficult to accept in view of preponderance of judicial opinion in the above said decisions including the decision rendered by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Ex-Sergeant Amrit Singh v. Union of India and others [2000 (5) SLR 559]. In view of the above judicial opinions this Court directs the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of disability pension from the day he was invalidated and thereafter he may be subjected to review medical board from time to time to assess the situation. Future grant will depend on the said opinion/opinions. The writ application stands allowed. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)