IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 8573 of 1998 Between: P. V. Nagaraju, S/o. Appa Rao, R/o. 5-6-14, PO Jagityal, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. Government of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi-11. 2. The Sr. Record Officer for OIC Records, Madras Regiment, Abhilakh Karyala Records, P.B.No. 1, Wellington (Nilgiris) - 643 231, TN. 3. The Officer-in-Charge, G-3/VII Sec C A D (D), Allahabad, U.P. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings No. 2595740/DD/19/PG3 n dated 26-2-1996 passed by the 2nd Respondent duly assessing the disability by the competent medical board in refusing to grant disability pension to the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to law and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; and consequently grant the disability pension to the petitioner duly assessing the disability from the date of his disability, i.e., April, 1995; and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.NO.8573 OF 1998 ORDER: This is a pitiable case where the writ petitioner, who has been enrolled as a Sepoy in the Batallion 12 of the Madras Regiment on 11-05-1991, was invalidated out of service with effect from 21-04-1995 under Medical Category “EEE” with 60% disability due to Schizophrenia. He has rendered nearly four years of service by the time he has been invalidated. The petitioner was initially admitted to the Military Hospital at Bhuj, Gujarat on 16-10-1994 and from there has been transferred to the Southern Command Hospital at Pune on 25-10-1994 for receiving treatment for his abnormal behavior. Subsequently, he has been transferred to the Military Hospital at Ahmedabad for receiving better treatment as he has been diagnosed to be suffering from Schizophrenia. The Medical Board constituted, examined him and opined that the negative features exhibited by him in the form of blunting of affect, poor social behavior, lack of initiative and drive and poverty of thought and ideation persists, which factors hamper his social functioning and the same is likely to affect his occupational functioning too. In view of the early onset of the invalidating decease, presence of residual features and changes of future relapses being more, the petitioner has been invalidated out of service under Medical Category “EEE” with effect from 25-04-1995 and he has been discharged from the hospital and straightaway sent home. The disability pension claim submitted by the petitioner has been rejected as the disability suffered was neither attributable to nor aggravated by Military Service. An Appeal is provided against the decision in that regard and the same was considered by the Ministry of Defense, which rejected the case of the petitioner for sanction of disability pension as the factors for his invalidation are attributable to his constitutional disorder and there are no factors which aggravated or attributable to the Armed Services. It is this decision of the respondents, which is sought to be challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that stressful way of duties and strenuous ways of life certainly can cause a disorder leading to Schizophrenia and, therefore, the decision of the respondents in construing that the factors are not attributable to Military Service is incorrect. The learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government would point out that Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for Army deals with the sanction of disability pension and the same is liable to be sanctioned if there are factors attributable to or aggravated by Military Service, but not otherwise. The learned Standing Counsel would contend that the service in the Armed Forces, by its very nature, being a highly disciplined service, calls for severe standards of physical fitness and also calls for certain degree of assured mental equilibrium. If anyone is found to be afflicted with or suffering from any disorder or disability, appropriate medical care is rendered immediately and the patients are also referred to for receiving better treatment at various other hospitals as well and that no attempt be made to discharge any of the servants from out of service of the Armed Forces without serious considerations being shown for their usefulness and continuance in service. The learned Standing Counsel would further submit that social behavior disorders, on the part of one or few employees, can cause more danger and harm to the entire service. Hence, no exception need be taken to the ultimate decision to discharge the writ petitioner from service and that the constitutional disorder, which resulted in the writ petitioner suffering from Schizophrenia, cannot be construed to be the result of the stressful way of life attributable to Military Service nor can it be argued that the disorder was got aggravated exclusively due to the factors of Military Service for the writ petitioner to earn a disability pension. I have given my thoughtful consideration for the rival submissions. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Schizophrenia is a serious kind of an ailment, which does not manifest on its own without attribution or provocative factors being present. If the attributive factors are the stressful ways of life, then it is only appropriate that the petitioner should be sanctioned the disability pension. It is further contended that at the time of his recruitment, the condition, both physical and mental, of the petitioner has been made a thorough assessment and only thereafter, he has been subjected to the process of recruitment and hence, his disability in quick time thereafter, can only be justifiably attributed to the Military Service. As noticed supra, Regulation 173, enables a disability pension to be granted to an individual, who is invalidated from service on account of disability, which is attributable to or aggravated by Military Service and the disability is assessed at 20 % or more. Therefore, the first and foremost requirement is that the disability suffered by the individual should be on account of contributory factors of the Military Service. Schizophrenia is a mental disorder and it has been defined as under: “Schizophrenia is one of a group of severe emotional disorders, usually of psychotic proportions, characterized by misinterpretation and retreat from reality, delusions, hallucinations, ambivalence inappropriate affect, and withdrawn, bizarre, or regressive behavior; popularly and erroneously called split personality.” The assessment made both, by the Medical Board at the first instance and the Appellate Medical Board, which, undoubtedly, comprised of specialized physicians, would make clear that Schizophrenia is not a factor, which could be construed as to have been attributable to the Military Service. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed into service several judgments in support of his claim. He has cited a Division Bench Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in UNION OF INDIA v. SHYAM LAL MALHOTRA[1], which suggests that it shall be presumed that the disorder suffered by the petitioner, which ultimately lead to his discharge has arisen while he was in service and as such the same should be considered as attributable to the Military Service. He has also relied upon another Division Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in UNION OF INDIA v. GURNAM SINGH[2], which is also to the same effect as there is no entry made in the service records of the individual at the time of entering into service and hence, the disability factors should be construed as attributable to the Military Service. He has also placed reliance upon judgments in JAGDAMBA PRASAD DUBEY v. UNION OF INDIA[3], EX. HAVILDAR OM CHAND v. UNION OF INDIA[4] and a Division Bench Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court BALBIR KAUR v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [5] to the same effect. However, the learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (PENSION) AND OTHERS v. S. BALACHANDRAN NAIR[6], in which, after considering Regulations 173 and 423, dealt with attributability to service. The Supreme Court has quoted an earlier decision of it in UNION OF INDIA v. BALJIT SINGH ( (1996) 11 SCC 315), in the following lines: “ 10. In Union of India v. Baljit Singh this Court had taken note of Rule 173 of the Pension Regulations. It was observed that where the Medical Board found that there was absence of proof of the injury/illness having been sustained due to military service or being attributable thereto, the High Court’s direction to the Government to pay disability pension was not correct. It was inter alia observed as follow: 6. ….. It is seen that various criteria have been prescribed in the guidelines under the Rules as to when the disease or injury is attributable to the military service. It is seen that under Rule 173 disability pension would be computed only when disability has occurred due to a wound, injury or disease which is attributable to military service or existed before or arose during the military service. If these conditions are satisfied, necessarily the incumbent is entitled to the disability pension. This is made amply clear from clauses (a) to (d) of para 7 which contemplates that in respect of a disease the Rules enumerated thereunder required to be observed. Clause (c) provides that if a disease is accepted as having arisen in service, it must also be established that the conditions of military service determined or contributed t the onset of the disease and that the conditions were due to the circumstances of duty in military service. Unless these conditions are satisfied, it cannot be said that the sustenance of injury per se is on account of military service. In view of the report of the Medical Board of doctors, it is not due to military service. The conclusion may not have been satisfactorily reached that the injury though sustained while in service, it was not on account of military service. In each case, when a disability pension is sought for and made a claim, it must be affirmatively established, as a fact, as to whether the injury sustained was due to military service or was aggravated which contributed to invalidation for the military service.” In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court referred to supra, I am not in a position to arrive at a conclusion that the findings recorded by the Medical Board as well as the Appellate Medical Board that the disorder of Schizophrenia suffered by the writ petitioner is either attributable or aggravated by Military Service for him to earn a disability pension. The finding of the Medical Board that it is a constitutional disorder is incapable of being assailed in the absence of any supporting material available on record. If the finding of the Medical Board that it is a constitutional disorder, it is rather unfortunate that it had manifested in the case of the petitioner in quick time after his enrollment with the Indian Army. One cannot be faulted for that, but at the same time it will also be not feasible or possible for this Court to come to the conclusion that the disorder is due to the contributory factors of his service. I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed, but however, without costs. -------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J mrk 11th June 2008 ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KRD} [1] 1995(6) SLR 405 [2] 1999(1) SLR 406 [3] 2000(5) SLR 208 [4] 2001(4) SLR 568 [5] 2004(1) SLR 767 [6] (2005) 13 SCC 128