1. The petitioner's son - Shri Om Parkash enrolled as Rifleman/Clerk in Indian Army on 25th May, 1977 and al lotted No. 13740264, after serving in Indian Army for more than five years. The petitioner's son was discharged from service on 15th August, 1982 on medical grounds under medical cat egory ‘E'. The Army Medical Board found Shri Om Parkash to be suffering from "SCHIZOPHRENIA 295" and not fit for fur ther services of Armed Forces. He was, accordingly, invalided out of service on 16th August, 1982 under Army Rule 13(3) item III (iii). The Medical Board also opined that the disability found was not related to military service and was a constitutional disorder. Accordingly, Shri Om Parkash was not granted dis ability pension being not eligible for such benefit in terms of para - 197 & 198 of Pension Regulation for the Army 1961 (Part I). However, Invalid Gratuity of Rs. 1,742.55 (Rupees one thousand seven hundred forty two and fifty five paise only), Terminal Credit Balance and some other benefits were granted to the petitioner's son. Notwithstanding his ineligibility for grant of disability pension, a claim was forwarded to the Pension Sanctioning Authority - Prin cipal Controller of Defence Accounts Pension (PCDA) (P) Allahabad vide No. C2/17440264/Pen dated 26th July, 1982. The Authority did not find any merit in the claim, and the decision was communicated to Shri Om Parka vide No. C2/13740264/Pen/17 dated 18th October, 1982. He preferred an ap peal against the aforementioned order to the Government of India, however, the Government of India did not find any reason to alter the decision of PCDA (P) Allahabad and dismissed the appeal. A second appeal was preferred to the De fence Minister's Appellate Committee without any success. The- petitioner pleading that her son was suffering from psychiatric disorder and having no men tal capacity to agitate his rights, has filed writ petition on hand to question the order of Principal Controller of De fence Accounts (Pension), PCDA (P) Allahabad dated 26th July, 1982, whereby claim for disability pension has been rejected. 2. The petitioner's case is that as her son at the time of his enrollment in Indian Army was found by the Medi cal Board to be physically and mentally fit and recommended for enrollment, the ailment that surfaced five years af ter his enrollment is attributable and aggravated by Army service.
2. The petitioner's case is that as her son at the time of his enrollment in Indian Army was found by the Medi cal Board to be physically and mentally fit and recommended for enrollment, the ailment that surfaced five years af ter his enrollment is attributable and aggravated by Army service. The peti tioner disputes that the ailment de tected, i.e. "SCHIZOPHRENIA" (Cata tonic) 295 is a constitutional disorder, disentitling the petitioner from disabil ity pension. The petitioner insists that her son is entitled to disability pension under Army Pension Regulation 173, inasmuch as, he was boarded out from service on account of disability and in terms of Appendix II to Pension Regula tions, the disease that leads to dis charge of an individual is to be ordi narily deemed to be related to Army service. 3. The writ petition is resisted by the respondents on the ground that as the disability detected was found by Army Medical Board to be neither at tributable nor aggravated by military service but a constitutional disorder, the petitioner's son was not entitled to disability pension. The respondents dis pute that Army Pension Regulation 173 or Para 181 of Pension Regulation was attracted in the matter. It is reiterated that the petitioner's claim having been rejected by PCDA (P) Allahabad, and, thereafter, his first appeal and second appeal found bereft of any merit, the petitioner had no right to maintain the petition. 4. I have gone through the plead ings as well as record available on the file and have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Grant of disability and other pen sions to army personnel is regulated by Pension Regulations in the Army, 1961, Rule 173 and Appendix II to the Regula tions are relevant to the present con troversy and required to be noticed. Rule 173 reads as under: " 173. Unless otherwise specifically provided a disability pension con sisting of service element and disabil ity element may be granted to an indi vidual who is invalided out of service on account of disability which is at tributable to or aggravated by military service in non-battle casualty and is assessed at 20 per cent or over. The question whether a disability is attributable to or aggravated by mili tary service shall be determined un der the rule in Appendix II." 6.
The question whether a disability is attributable to or aggravated by mili tary service shall be determined un der the rule in Appendix II." 6. A bare look on the Rule 173 would make it clear that a person sub ject to Army Act, 1950, would be entitled to grant of disability pension, in the event, he is boarded out of the Army on account of disability, in case, such dis ability is attributable to or aggravated by the military service. The guidelines to be followed while determining whether a disability is attributable or aggravated by the military service, are laid down in Appendix II to the Regula tions. Let us now turn to Appendix II to find out what are the guidelines and whether such guidelines have been fol lowed in the case on hand. In order to be considered for disability pension, a person under the Army Act, obviously must have been as laid down in Rule 4 to the Appendix II invalided out of ser vice. Rule 5 of the Appendix II spells out the approach of the authority clothed with the power to take a decision as regards the nature of disability that prompts the Army Authorities to invalid out the person subject to the Army Act, 1950. It reads as under; "5. The approach to the question of entitlement to casualty pensionary awards and evaluation of disabilities shall be based on the followed pre-sumptions:- PRIOR TO AND DURING SERVICE. (a) A member is presumed to have been in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service except as to physical disabilities noted or recorded at the time of entrance. (b) In the event of his subsequently being discharged from service on medical grounds any deterio ration in his health which has taken place is due to service." 7. A closer look at Rule 5 to Appen dix II reveals that there are two pre sumptions as regards a person enrolled in the Army. Firstly there is a presump tion that the person enrolled was in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service except as to physical disabilities noted or recorded, at the time on entrance. It is pertinent to point out that there is a thorough Medical examination of the person, de sirous to get enrolled in the Army.
Firstly there is a presump tion that the person enrolled was in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service except as to physical disabilities noted or recorded, at the time on entrance. It is pertinent to point out that there is a thorough Medical examination of the person, de sirous to get enrolled in the Army. Ob viously, once, he on such Medical ex amination is found to be physically and mentally fit and allowed to enter the Army Service, it is to be presumed that he did not suffer from any physical or mental disability at the time of his entrance in Military Service. The second presumption is that when the army per sonnel is discharged any time after his enrollment in the Army on health grounds, the health problem or disabil ity detected is due to service. 8. Let us now proceed to go through Rule 14 of the Appendix II. It reads; " 14. In respect of disease, the follow ing rule will be observed: (a) Case in which it is established that conditions of Military Ser vice did not determine or con tribute to the onset of the dis ease but influenced the subse quent courses of the disease, will fall for acceptance on the basis of aggravation. (b) A disease which has led to an individual's discharge or death will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service, if no " note of it was made at the time of the individual's acceptance for military service. However, if medical opinion holds, for rea sons to be stated, that the dis ease could not have been de tected on medical examination prior to acceptance for service, the disease will not be deemed to have arisen during service. (c) If a disease is accepted as hav ing arisen in service, it must also be established that the conditions of military service determined or the contributed to the onset of the disease and that the conditions were due to the circumstances of duty in military service." 9. It follows that even if the health problem or the disability detected is found not to have been a result of mili tary service, the army personnel boarded out would still be entitled to the disability pension, if it is found that the disease was aggravated by the military service.
It follows that even if the health problem or the disability detected is found not to have been a result of mili tary service, the army personnel boarded out would still be entitled to the disability pension, if it is found that the disease was aggravated by the military service. In the circumstances to disen title from disability person, it would not be sufficient for the Authority that de clares the army personnel unfit to serve in the Army on health problems, to opine that the disease or disability is not attributable to the Military Service but such authority has to further cer tify that the disease was not aggravated by the military service. Conversely where a disease is said to have arisen in service, it is to be established that the conditions of the military service determined or contributed to the onset of the disease and that such conditions were relatable to the circumstances of the duty in military service. Rule 14 to Appendix II also gives rise to presump tion as regards onset of the disease. In the event, the disease is not mentioned in the medical report at the time of en trance to the Army Service, there is a presumption that disease has arisen in the service. The only exception to the said presumption is where the Medical Board opines for the reasons to be re corded that the disease could not have been detected on Medical examination prior to entrance into Army Service. With the said baseline, let us examine the claim for disability pension set out in the petition. 10. The petitioner's son, as is clear by now, was found after serving the Army for five years to be suffering from "SCHIZOPHRENIA" (Catatonic) 295. In terms of Rule 5 to Appendix II, there is a presumption that the disability/dis ease detected had arisen during the service and was attributable to the mili tary service. However, the presumption can be displaced, in the event, the Medi cal Board opines for the reasons detailed in support of such opinion that disease/disability detected was constitutional in nature meaning thereby that it was there even when the petitioner's son was enrolled in the Army and could not have been detected on Medical exami nation at the time of entrance in Mili tary service. 11.
11. In the present case, though the Medical Board has opined that the dis ease/disability detected was constitu tional in nature, yet the Medical Board has not, as mandated by Rule 14(b) to Appendix II detailed the reasons that persuaded it to opine that the disease by its nature could not have been de tected on Medical examination prior to his acceptance for service. It is well settled that in order to disentitle the army personnel invalided on medical grounds, the Board must certify that the disease or disability could not have been picked up at the time of entry in service and detail its reason in support of such conclusions. Reference in this regard may be made to law laid down in " Union of India and anr. Vs. Sikander Singh" 2011 (1) JKJ 878 (HC). The Medi cal Board, it may be stated at the cost of repetition, was not only to certify that the disease or disability could not have been detected at the time of entrance but also give the reasons in support of such opinion. So viewed, the opinion given by the Board is in-conflict with Rule 14, Appendix II to the Regulations. 12. The above discussions apart, let us see whether "SCHIZOPHRENIA (Cata tonic) 295" is a genetic disorder and in dependent of the opinion rendered by the Medical Board, neither attributable nor aggravated by the Military Service. "SCHIZOPHRENIA" is a complex mental disorder that makes it difficult to tell the differences between the real and unreal experiences, think logically, have normal emotional response, be have normally in social situation. It is not exclusively genetic in nature. Cer tain environmental events may trigger the disease. In the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Dis order (DSM) published by American Psy chiatric Association "SCHIZOPHRENIA" (Catatonic) 295 is associated with the mental disorders, as well as drug abuse or overdose or both. "SCHIZOPHRENIA" (Catatonic) 295 may be seen in many mental disorders including infections such as Encephalitis, Autoimmune Dis orders, Focal Neurological lesions in cluding strokes metabolic disturbances or adverse reaction to prescribed medi cation. The causes of the disease, therefore, cannot be generalized as ex clusively genetic in character. In the opinion of the experts, the psychologi cal stress plays a significant role in pre cipitating the illness.
The causes of the disease, therefore, cannot be generalized as ex clusively genetic in character. In the opinion of the experts, the psychologi cal stress plays a significant role in pre cipitating the illness. Again adverse life events like, loss of parents in childhood, absence of social support, like having no friends to provide such support, loss of friends, loss of siblings, may be re sponsible for onset of the disease or ag gravating the disease. 13. Viewed thus, to say that "SCHIZOPHRENIA" in all its forms in cluding "SCHIZOPHRENIA (Catatonic) 295" is always genetic or constitutional in nature would not be a valid statement. The army personnel invalided out on the ground of having been found suf fering from "SCHIZOPHRENIA" have been held entitled to disability pension in a number of authoritative judicial pronouncements including "Ex-Naik M.S. Pemmaiah V. Union of India" 1998 (3) SCT 755, "Harjit Singh V. Union of In dia" 1998(4) SCT 88, "Indu Bhushan Bali V. Union of India and ors" 2007(1) SLJ 392 decided on 19th September, 2006, "Balwant Singh V. Union of India and ors" LPA(SW) No.521/1998 decided on 17th November, 1999 and last of all "Darshana Devi Vs. Union of India and ors." 2008 (1) SLJ 1, wherein all these cases have been quoted with approval and relied upon. 14. For the reasons discussed above, the writ petition is allowed. Resultantly, Order of Principal Control ler of Defence Accounts (Pension) PCDA (P) Allahabad dated 26th July, 1982, whereby disability pension to the petitioner's son namely, Shri Om Parkash enrolled as Rifleman/Clerk in Indian Army on 25th May, 1977, (No. 13740264) has been declined, is quashed and the respondents are di rected to accord fresh consideration to grant of disability pension admissible under rules to the petitioner's son. 15. This petition is, accordingly, al lowed.