Ashok Bhushan - (1.) -Heard Sri Vijay Shanker, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anoop Kumar Srivastava appearing for the respondents.
(2.) BY this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders dated 9th June, 1987 and the order dated 23rd May, 1986, refusing grant of disability pension to the petitioner and the order dated 10th September, 2001. A writ of mandamus has also been sought for grant of disability pension to the petitioner. Brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are : The petitioner was recruited as gunner in Artillery on 21.1.1980. Petitioner was sanctioned leave on 4.10.1984 for two months. After expiry of the leave the petitioner was to report on 6.12.1984. Petitioner fell ill on 4.10.1984, while availing his leave at home District Ghazipur and was admitted at Sadar Hospital, Ghazipur on 4.12.1984. On 5.12.1984 he was referred to Military Hospital, Varanasi, where he was admitted for ten days. The petitioner thereafter referred to Military Hospital, Allahabad and thereafter to Jalalpur. The petitioner was subsequently admitted in Command Hospital, Lucknow, where he received an order dated 30th September, 1985, intimating that he has been invalidated from service with effect from 26th June, 1985 and discharge certificate was sent alongwith the letter.
(3.) THE claim of disability pension was refused by letter dated 23.5.1986. THE petitioner filed an appeal to the Central Government which too, was rejected by the letter dated 9th June, 1987. On 20th September, 1999, petitioner again moved a representation to the respondent No. 2 for grant of disability pension on the basis of news paper report dated 14.9.1999 to the effect that the army men who have not even completed ten years service and have been removed due to physical disability, are entitled for disability pension. THE said representation was again rejected by letter dated 14th October, 1999. By letter dated 14.10.1999 the petitioner was intimated that he was already informed many times that the disability is 'hysterical reaction' which resulted in his invalidation from the Army was not viewed ether attributable or aggravated by military service hence the claim of disability pension was rejected. Petitioner, thereafter again represented and same reply was received by letter dated 10th September, 2001. THEreafter this writ petition was filed in the year 2001. A counter-affidavit and the supplementary-counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents in which it has been stated that the Medical Board assessed cause, nature and degree of disability of the petitioner on 7th May, 1985, at Command Hospital, Central Command, Lucknow and had viewed that disability was neither attributable or aggravated by military service and opined that it was constitutional disease not connected with the service. THE report of the Medical Board has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the supplementary counter-affidavit. It opined that "it is a constitutional disease and not connected with service". THE disease for which the petitioner was invalidated was mentioned as 'historical reaction' 300 (b). Counter-affidavit has also taken a preliminary objection that the claim of disability pension being rejected on 23rd of May, 1986, the writ petition is barred by delay and laches. THE counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has been invalidated out from service with effect from 25th June, 1985, thus the writ petition was filed after lapse of sixteen years and is barred by delay and laches. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the action of the respondents contended that the disease was not detected at the time when the petitioner entered into service hence the disease has to be treated having surface during service and attributable to military service. Learned counsel contended that when the petitioner was posted in Assam for three years which caused onset of disease. Replying the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is contended that the petitioner having represented the matter time and again the writ petition is not barred by laches. He submitted that the claim of disability pension is not liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and the Court may, of course, confine the liability from the reasonable period in the event the writ petition is allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on several judgments of this Court being the judgments in Ram Niwas v. Union of India and others, (1997) 1 ESC 477 (All) ; Mahavir Singh Rawat v. Union of India and others, 2001 (1) AWC 363 ; Shiv Murti Rai v. Union of India and others, (1997) 2 UPLBEC 1179 : 1997 (3) AWC 1903 ; Inder Jang v. Union of India and others, (1999) 3 UPLBEC 2010 : 1999 (4) AWC 3238 ; Anil Kumar Mishra v. Union of India and others, (1996) 2 UPLBEC 761 : 1996 (1) AWC 2.48 (NOC) ; Yashpal Singh Mehra v. Union of India and others, (1998) 1 UPLBEC 708 : 1997 Supp AWC 618 ; Ranjeet Singh v. Union of India and others, 2003 Lab IC 1704 (PandH HC) and Shiv Das v. Union of India and others, 2007 AIR SCW 1487 : 2007 (5) AWC 4467 (SC).;