LPA No. 547 of 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 547 of 2001 in CWP No. 17043 of 1998 Date of decision: 11.2.2009 Union of India and others ...Appellants Versus Ex.Sepoy Ranjit Singh ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Gurpreet Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.B.S.Sehgal, Advocate for the respondent. -.- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,J. (Oral) 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Union of India under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 22.9.2000. The learned Single Judge held that disease suffered by the writ petitioner was attributable to the army service and he was entitled to disability pension from the date of his discharge from the army service. 2. Case of the writ petitioner was that he was enrolled in army service on 5.8.1987. He was discharged on 18.2.1995 after about 7 ½ years of service. During this period he suffered two types of diseases; (i) Schizophrenia and (ii) Generalised Seizures. Under both counts disability was assessed at 40% each. The composite disability was assessed at 60%. Case of the petitioner was that the disability was attributable to army service and on that ground he was entitled to disability pension. This claim was wrongly rejected by the authorities. 3. The appellant contested the petition by submitting that the disease suffered by the petitioner after two years of service was cured by LPA No. 547 of 2001 2 the treatment given from time to time but he remained depressed on account of his family circumstances and the same was not attributable to army service. 4. Learned Single Judge held that the stand of the appellant that the disease was not attributable to army service was not tenable. When the petitioner joined service he was put to medical test and at that time no deformity was noticed and he was found fit for service. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Main contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that mere fact that at the time of entry into service the petitioner was found to be fit cannot be conclusive of the question that the disease suffered was attributable to army service. The petitioner had to show circumstances or conditions in the military service which may have led to the disease. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another v. Baljit Singh, 1996(II) SCC 315 and Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) and others v. S.Balachandran Nair, AIR 2005 SC 4391. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner supports the view taken by the learned Single Judge and relies upon judgment of the Delhi High Court in Navin Chandra vs. Union of India and others, 2006(4) SCT 626, judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Union of India and others vs. Hemant Kumar, 2009(1) RSJ 196 and judgments of this Court in Joginder Singh v. Union of India and others (CWP No. 7323 of 2007) decided on 4.12.2007 and Ex-Sepoy Bhola Ram versus Union of India and others (CWP No. 10451 of 2007) decided on 27.3.2008 . 8. Question for consideration is: Whether finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the disease suffered by the petitioner was attributable to military service and he was entitled to disability pension, LPA No. 547 of 2001 3 calls for interference. 9. It is not disputed that the issue of disability pension is governed by Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961. Chapter III Section IV deals with disability pensionary awards. Regulation 173 provides that grant of disability pension consisting of service element and disability element may be granted to an individual who is invalidated out of service on account of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service in non-battle casualty and is assessed at 20% or above. 10. Claim of the petitioner under the above regulation was rejected vide letter dated 26.11.1996 (Annexure P-2) on the ground that disability suffered by the petitioner was not attributable to military service nor was aggravated by military service. The appellant has placed on record Medical Board Proceedings as Annexure RA wherein under Part-III, Opinion of the Medical Board, in column 3 “disability” is mentioned as “Schizophrenia” and “Generalised Seizure”. Against column A which requires to specify whether disability was attributable to service during peace or under field service conditions, the answer is `No'. Against column B which requires mentioning whether the disability was aggravated during peace or under field service conditions, the answer is `No'. Against column C which requires mentioning whether the disability was not connected with service, the answer is yes. In column 3 (d), it is mentioned that disease was constitutional disorder not connected with service. 11. In Baljit Singh (supra), it was held that disability pension was liable to be paid only if disease was attributable to military service. Reference was made to para 7 of Appendix II called Entitlement Rules, 1982 referable to Regulation 173. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant states that now para 7 is equal to para 14 in the Compilation of Pension Regulations and the said para provides that though ordinarily disease will be deemed to have arisen LPA No. 547 of 2001 4 in service, if no note was made at the time of the individual's entry to military service and medical opinion holds, for reasons to be stated, that disease could have been prior to entry in service, such medical opinion is to be accepted. 13. In S.Balachandran Nair (supra), it was held that the High Court was not justified in differing from the view of the medical board opinion. 14. We are of the view that the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baljit Singh's case and S.Balachandra Nair's case (supra) are distinguishable on facts. In the present case it has been admitted in the written statement there was an episode of Generalised Tonic Clonic Seizure on 11.10.1998 when the petitioner was in service and he was given treatment which continued thereafter. In the opinion of the Medical Board Annexure RA, there is no reason given as to how the said illness did not relate to the disability in question. The disability is clearly relatable to the episode which is duly admitted in the written statement. It may have been a different matter if such an episode had not happened. The opinion of the medical board in the present case was thus arbitrary in ignoring the admitted incident. 15. In Naveen Chander (supra), it was held that the opinion of Medical Board must be self contained and well reasoned and supported by documentary proof and therefore, the opinion that the disease was not attributable to the military service was without any basis. Moreover, para 14 of 1982 Rules provides that if a person is fit at the time of entry into service, there will be presumption that the disease is due to military service though on facts it could be established that the disability existed prior to entry into service and the mere fact that such disease was not detected at the time of entry into service will not be conclusive. Similar view has been taken by this Court in Joginder Singh and Ex-Sepoy Bhola Ram (supra) and the LPA No. 547 of 2001 5 Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hemant Kumar (supra). 16. In view of the above, no fault can be found with the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the disability of the petitioner was attributable to the military service and he was entitled to disability pension from the date of his discharge from the military service. 17. The petition is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE 11.2.2009 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE