A.J.S. CHAUDHARY Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Although several reliefs sought by the petitioner include his prayer for quashing the decision of the competent authority who invalided him from service and to direct his reinstatement with all consequential benefits, during the course of hearing, learned counsel confined his submissions to the petitioner's prayer for issuance of a writ to quash the order rejecting his claim for grant of disability pension and for issuance of a direction to the respondents to give him consequential benefits and interest at the rate of 18% on delayed payment of invalid pension/gratuity and other benefits admissible to the petitioner as an Ex-serviceman.

(2.) The facts necessary for deciding this case are that the petitioner was selected in 1971 for admission to National Defence Academy. After successful completion of training, he joined Indian Military Academy, Dehradun for pre-commission training. He was granted commission in the rank of Second Lieutenant in December. 1975. During his tenure in the Army, the petitioner remained posted at high attitude/field station in Jammu and Kashmir and Sikkim for two consecutive terms between 1976 and 1981. In mid 1981, he reported sick on account of illness and was diagnosed as suffering from Pilonidial Sinus. He was treated in Command Hospital at Chandigarh from 17.9.1982 to 4.1 and was finally diagnosed as suffering from Schizophrenia - ICC 25. He was declared unfit for military service on account of being placed in medical category 'CEE' and was ultimately invalided from service due to sickness. He was paid Rs. 32952.50 towards invalid gratuity/pension after a gap of almost 9 years. His claim for grant of disability pension was rejected on the ground that the disability on account of which he was invalided out of service was neither attributable nor aggravated by service in the Indian Army. His appeal was rejected by the Government of India vide letter Annexure P.16 dated 2.9.1993.

(3.) The petitioner has challenged the decision of the respondents not to grant him disability pension by contending that the same is violative of the Army Regulations. He has also pleaded that the failure of the respondents to pay invalid pension/gratuity for it period of 9 years has resulted in depriving him of the property rights and, therefore, the respondents should he made liable to compensate him by award of interest at the rate of 18% per annum.