IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.624 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.5.2010 Union of India and others -----Appellants Vs. No.15102303P Ex. Hav Sahab Singh -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Ms. Geeta Singhwal, Advocate for the appellants. --- Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge directing grant of disability element of pension to the respondent-writ petitioner. 2. Case of the respondent is that he was enrolled in Indian Army on 22.2.1985 after being found medically fit and no note of any disease was made in the enrolment form by the Medical Inspection team. After rendering service of nine years, he suffered disease which was diagnosed as Acute and Transient Psychotic Disorder on account of which he was found to be unfit for further military duty and was discharged from service on 1.11.2007. He made a claim for disability pension under the rules which was LPA No.624 of 2010 (O&M) disallowed on the ground that the disease was not attributable to Army service. He filed writ petition in this Court challenging the finding to the effect that the disease was not attributable to Army service. 3. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition following earlier judgment of this Court dated 27.3.2008 in Ex- Sepoy Bhola Ram v. Union of India, CWP No.10451 of 2007. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the earlier DB judgment was distinguishable as opinion of Medical Board was clear in the present case. 6. We are unable to accept this submission. Referring to the relevant rules, it was held in Ex.Sepoy Bhola Ram that the nature of disease suffered by the respondent was covered by disease caused by stress and strain which could be held to be attributable to Army service. In these circumstances, opinion of the Medical Board was without any basis. Relevant observations are as under:- “Appendix II, referred to in Army Regulation 173, contains Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982. Annexure III to Appendix II mentions classification of diseases. At Clause B, list of disease affected by stress and strain are mentioned. The disease “Psychosis and Psychoneurosis” is mentioned in Clause B at serial No.1. The disease mentioned as “Psychosis 2 LPA No.624 of 2010 (O&M) and Psychoneurosis” in Annexure III to Appendix II ibid or “Unspecified Psychosis,” from which the petitioner is suffering, is one and the same. Psychosis means mental illness and neurosis means a mental state resulting in high level of anxiety, unreasonable fears and behaviour. It is, thus, clear that the disease “Unspecified Psychosis”, suffered by the petitioner, is included in the list of Diseases Affected by stress and strain mentioned in Annexure III to Appendix II ibid. Therefore, the action of the respondents in declining disability pension to the petitioner for the disease “Unspecified Psychosis”, which is attributable to and aggravated by Army service, cannot be upheld. Accordingly, the orders passed by the respondents in this regard are set aside.” 7. We also find that in Ex.Gen.Inder Datt Sharma v. Union of India, CWP No.3345 of 1995, decided by the Delhi High Court on 26.9.1997 , it was observed that when individual was found not to be suffering from any disease at the time of entry into military service, unless there was specific medical opinion to the effect that the disease could not have been detected at the time of entry into service, disease will be treated to be attributable to Army service. 8. In a recent judgment in Union of India and others v. Ex. Sepoy Ranjit Singh, LPA No.547 of 2001, decided on 11.2.2009, the matter was considered by this Court and it was held 3 LPA No.624 of 2010 (O&M) that if the circumstances give rise to an inference that disease was attributable to the Air Force Service, negative opinion of the Medical Board given without any basis could not be treated as conclusive. After referring to judgments in Union of India and another v. Baljit Singh, 1996(2) SCC 316, Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) and Others v. S.Balachandran Nair, AIR 2005 SC 4391, Navin Chandra v. Union of India and others, 2006(4) SCT 626 (Delhi), Union of India and others v. Hemant Kumar, 2009(1) RSJ 196 (MP) and Joginder Singh v. Union of India and others, CWP No.7323 of 2007, decided by this Court on 4.12.2007, it was observed:- “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 (that) 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 4 LPA No.624 of 2010 (O&M) 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 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.” 9. In view of above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 10. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge 5 LPA No.624 of 2010 (O&M) May 14, 2010 (Alok Singh) ‘gs’ Judge 6