Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsels.
(2.) BY this writ petition, petitioner, who was invalidated out of service on 18/1/1991 in medical category 'EEE' on account of Schizophrenia with 30% disablement, has prayed that the impugned order Annex.2 dated 8/4/1993 and the appellate order dated 31/3/1994 be quashed and he may be allowed disability pension on account of aforesaid disease of schizophrenia, which he acquired while in service. He was working as Sepoy vide No. 6925884 and was enrolled in Army on 4/9/1986 and after serving for a period of 04 years 09 months and 15 days he was so discharged from service. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. J.K. Kaushik submits that since the disease was acquired and developed while the petitioner was in service, it has to be taken that the same was caused or aggravated on account of military service and, therefore, petitioner may be held entitled to disability pension and it is rebuttal presumption which has not been rebutted by respondents while passing the impugned orders.
(3.) ON the side opposite, Mr. Vinit Mathur assisted by Mr. Lokesh Mathur submits that it is not so and a panel of competent doctors in the military have found that the said disease of Schizophrenia was a 'constitutional disability' which had no relevance with the service of the petitioner in military and, therefore, said disease cannot be said to have caused by or aggravated by service and, therefore, petitioner was not entitled to the disability pension as claimed by him. He has placed for perusal of this Court the said report of medical board in the case of petitioner. He further relies on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Union of India and Ors. v. : (2008)5SCC747 , Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of Union of India and Ors. v. Bhoora Ram D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 254/2006 decided on 25/5/2006 and also the decision the learned Single Judge in case of Swai Singh Bhati v. Union of India and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4246/94, decided on 20/7/2008.. Learned counsel for the respondent, therefore, submits that the petitioner was rightly held not entitled to disability pension under the relevant rules and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.;