IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP. No. 1918 of 2010. Date of Decision:20.8.2010. _______________________________________________ Lekh Raj. ….Petitioner. Versus. Union of India. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1?yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Vijay Bhatia, Advocate. For Respondent. : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The petitioner who was serving in the ITBP which is a para military force is aggrieved by the action of the respondent in denying disability pension which was conveyed through Annexure:P-3. The ground for rejection given is that : “……….as per Govt. of India/CCS(EOP) Rules, 1939 a Central Govt. Employee is entitled for EOP (Disability) when he is boarded out of Govt. service on account of his disablement due to wound, injury or disease and disablement is accepted as due to Govt. service, but your client was boarded out because he was suffering from Schizophrenia which was not caused due to Govt. service conditions. Disability pension benefits are authorized for personnel after having rendered continuous service of not less than 10 years. Above Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?yes . 2 individual did not complete 10 years of service. Hence he is not eligible for Invalidation (Disability) pension.” Notice of this petition was issued to the respondent who in the reply pleads that the petitioner cannot be granted disability pension as he is suffering from ‘Schizophrenia’ which is constitutional disease and is not attributable to service. This is the gist of the defence taken by the respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance on a judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Indu Bhushan Bali Vs. Union of India and others, 2008(2) SLJ 241 holding that Schizophrenia is a disease which can be contracted while in army service. The Court in that case was dealing with case of the petitioner therein who suffering from ‘Paranoid Schizophrenia’ and has been treated at PGI Chandigarh, AIMS, New Delhi and Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi. On the submissions made by the respondent therein that this disease could not be attributable to the military service, the Court held: “ A perusal of the aforesaid rules shows that the said rule do not prescribe any limit of minimum service to enable an army personnel to become entitled for invalidating person. Even if army personnel suffers from a disability after few days of his joining the service, which disability is on account of stress and strains of army service, he is entitled to disability pension under the aforementioned rules. Reliance in this regard can be placed on 2004 (2)JKL 113, Kaushalya Devi Vs. Union of India and Others. In the present case, the petitioner suffered from Peranoid Schizophrenia which disease is held to be a disease on account of stress and strain of army service. In Harjit Singh Vs. Union of India, 1948 (4) SCT88 (P&H), the army personnel suffering from Schizophrenia was held entitled to disability pension. The Karnataka High Court in the case of Ex. Naik M.S. Permmaiah Vs. Union of India, 1998 (3) SCT 755 (Karnataka), had allowed the disability pension where the 3 concerned employee was suffering from Schizophrenia. In the said case the reasoning given was that if a person was not suffering from the disease when he joined the service and when there was no entry that the person was suffering from any disorder or disability, then it is to be presumed that the disease had occurred on account of stress and strain of army service and the same is attributable to military service. Therefore, the petitioner is held entitled to disability pension. The disability pension is to be assessed by the respondents under Central Civil Services (Extra-ordinary Pension) Rules as amended by G.I.M.F, O.M. No. F.23(15).E.V(A)/73-Main and Pt. I, dated 20th January, 1978 as per the assessment made by the Medical Board.” I am in respectful agreement to the law laid down. In these circumstances, this petition is allowed. Annexure:P-3 is quashed and set aside. A direction is issued to the respondent to re-consider the case of the petitioner for grant of disability pension in view of the law stated herein-above. The petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. August 20, 2010(R)