J. PRAKASH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, MINISTRY OF HOME, COMMANDANT MEG AND CENTRE AND CHIEF CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE, ACCOUNT (PENSIONS)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE fads of the case are as follows: -The petitioner was enrolled in the Army on 28.2.1991. Alter completion of training, the petitioner is slated to have been posted to 16 Engineer Regiment. It is his contention that he was medically and physically fit before he was selected to the army. He continued to maintain medical category "AYE", which is the highest medical fitness at all limes till September 1995. At that point of time when he reported to his Regiment Medical Inspection Room with a headache, the petitioner was referred to the Army Hospital, Delhi Cantonment. After routine tests, the petitioner was diagnosed as a case of "Head injury effects of V6 -7" and was placed in medical category CEE (temporary) for a period of twelve weeks with effect from 24.11.1995, in terms of Annexure -"A" to the writ petition. This was pursuant to an opinion by the Medical Board held on 24/11/1995 at the Military Hospital, Ambala Cantonment. This in turn was based on the opinion of a Specialist Neuro Physician of the Army Hospital, Delhi Cantonment.

(3.) IT is the petitioner's case that in contravention of these recommendations, he was sent on an Exercise at Suratgarh. This entailed the petitioner undergoing practice and tests for the battle preparedness of units and formations under simulated battle conditions. It is an arduous task under which the petitions was placed. He ought not to have been prescribed such tasks when he was placed below medical category -A. This was especially so when the petitioner was exposed to the risk of strain and rigour. The petitioner was again placed before the Medical Authorities on 18.6.1996 at the Army Hospital, Delhi Cantonment. The Specialist Neuro Physician at the Army Hospital, Delhi Cantonment, recommended further tests on the petitioner and found (hat there was a disablement of 40%, which could not be attributed to his duties, but, apparently on account of the injury sustained when he was on leave. Based on the said recommendations, die Medical Board discharged the petitioner on 24.8.1996. It is this, which is under, challenge.