- (1.) KRISHNA Kumar, J. The petitioner is army personnel. During his tenure, he suf fered with Schizophrenia and was dis charged. He prayed for disability pension which was refused, hence this writ petition.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the par ties. There is no dispute in respect of the illness suffered by the petitioner. The petitioner's only grievance is that because he suffered the disability attributable to service he is entitled for disability pension, while learned Counsel for the respondents contended that disability suffered has nothing to do with the service and, there fore, the petitioner is not entitled for dis ability pension. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, we are con vinced that the disability suffered by the petitioner was caused because of stress and strains of service condition. There is nothing to show that the petitioner could suffer this disease because of any other reason hereditary etc. Reliance, has been placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner upon Sanjeev Jaggi v. Union of India and others, 1994 (24) ALR 98, wherein it is held that decision of the Defence Ministry that the petitioner has not earned disability due to military ser vice is not supported by any valid reason or valid ground nor it is supported by (he opinion of any higher medical authority in medical service than Medical Board. The petitioner has been in service and must have been medieally checked Her order dated 9th July, 1993 whereby before entering into service and must also another Managing Committee, of which have been medically checked during his long petitioners claim to be members, had been service and if there as nothing earlier to appointed. aggravate the diseased, the only conclusion, we hold, would be that he suffered with the disease only because of stress and strains of his service condition's and, therefore, this disability is attributable to service and the petitioner is, therefore, entitled for disability claim. The orders dated 7-24997 and 6- 11-1981 are set aside and the respondents is not disputed that the respond are directed to pay disability pension to the order" No- 1 had power to appoint a Manag-petitioner. The writ (petition is according- Committee of Co-operative Society. In the given circumstance, if the respondent The submission of the learned Counsel of the petitioners is that the respondent No. 1 lacked power to modify the order dated 9th July, 1993 and appoint new Managing Committee by the imply, allowed. Petition allowed .;