Ex. W.O. S.S. Gautam vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. ...
2006 Latest Caselaw 1868 Del

JUDGMENT

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. With reference to Regulations 48, 173 and 185 of the Pension Regulations for Army 1961 (Part-I), the competent Authority i.e. Government of India, Ministry of defense (Pension Branch) had issued various letters and circulars declaring Appendix II to be its part including letter dated 18.4.1950, which were made effective from 1.4.1948 in supersession of all previous orders. To this Appendix II, an annexure was made in relation to classification of diseases. These circulars and directions were not limited or restricted in their scope and application and subsequently they were also stated in the letter of Ministry of defense dated 22nd November, 1983 and Corrigendum dated 21st August, 1983 as Annexure 3 to Appendix II. Under these provisions, Hypertension, Psychosis and Psychoneurosis are the diseases, which are affected by stress and strain of service as well as altitude as per these declarations.

2. In a recent judgment in the case of Sugna Ram Ranoliya v. Union of India and Ors. (WP(C) No. 3699/2004 decided on 27th July, 2006), a Division Bench of this Court had discussed at some length the attributability and aggravation of different diseases with particular emphasis on Schizophrenia. The principles stated in that judgment after considering various judgments of the Supreme Court, are squarely applicable even to the present cases. In the said judgment, the Court held as under:

Various Benches of this Court as well as all other High Courts have taken the view that the diseases like Schizophrenia, Neurosis and Epilepsy etc. are the diseases which are normally attributable to and/or aggravated by Army Service unless there was definite medical evidence on record to show that the onset of such diseases were prior to the joining of Army and was constitutional in the sense that their cause was not known and in all probable possibilities they could relate back to the period prior to the enrollment of the individual in the Armed Forces. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Satpal Singh (Mr.) v. Union of India and Ors. 1999 IV AD (Delhi) 321 held as under:

What sort of Schizophrenia from which the petitioner suffered has also not been indicated by the Medical Board. Hallucination from which such patient suffers are of three types namely; (i) Auditory, (ii) Visual or (iii) Somatosensory. Auditory Schizophrenia occurs when a person imagines that somebody is talking against him. Visual Schizophrenia is when he imagines something like seeking ghosts etc. Nothing has been said by the respondent as to from which category of schizophrenia the petitioner suffered. From whatever category of "Schizophrenia" the petitioner suffered it would have been apparent when he was medically examined in June, 1982 or at any time thereafter. But none of the Medical Boards prior to October, 1990 declared that the petitioner was suffering from "Schizophrenia" or any mental disorder. Therefore, it would not be correct on the part of respondent to say that petitioner suffered from constitutional disorder. Constitutional disorder would have in some form or the other must have manifested itself. But it did not till October, 1990. Therefore, the rejection on the ground of constitutional disorder cannot be appreciated.

3. Mr. S.M. Hooda's contention has a force when he urged that in the year 1990 there was insurgency in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The petitioner being posted in the forward area of that State due to anxiety might have suffered from "Schizophrenia". Since he had already suffered from Neurosis earlier and being posted in the forward area anxiety got aggravated and became a case of schizophrenic. For this argument of Mr. Hooda, counsel for the respondent had no answer. He could not deny the fact that the petitioner was posted during the relevant time in the forwarding area of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. He also could not contradict the fact that it was while posted in the field area that the petitioner suffered from Neurosis. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that schizophrenia from which the petitioner suffered was a consequence of Neurosis. As per respondent's own showing petitioner developed psychiatric break down in June, 1990 when he started feeling of sadness, fear from unknown, lack of concentration, loss of interest in work etc. He showed depressive features while posted in the field area of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. This ultimately led him to schizophrenic. Therefore, it wold not be correct to say that the disease on account of which petitioner was invalided out of service was not attributable to service nor aggravated because of his service. In fact the presumption ought to have been drawn as per Sub-Rule (b) of Rule 7 by the respondent. On account of his service presumption can be drawn that the petitioner suffered from this disease on account of his military service and it aggravated by military service. Instead of raising the presumption as is required to be raised under Sub-rule (b) of Rule 7, the Controller of defense Accounts rejected the disability pension without any reason and without appreciating the facts of this case. Admittedly, the onset of the disease was during the course of service. There was no reason for Controller of defense Accounts not to accept the recommendation of the Commanding Officer, which in this case was made to enable the petitioner to get the disability pension. The Commanding Officer of the petitioner sanctioned the disability pension w.e.f 6th July, 1991. Duly sanctioned case was forwarded to the respondent No. 2 i.e. Controller of defense Accounts (Pension) Dropdi Ghaat, Allahabad which was in consonance with the presumption which is to be raised under Sub-Rule (b) of Rule 7, which the respondent No. 2 failed to do without any reason.

4. Still in another case titled as Ex.Sub. Major Ram Kishan v. UOI and Ors. being CWP No. 2221/2005 decided on 14.3.06 where the petitioner suffering from Achalasia Cardia (Optd) and Essential Hypertension disease was invalided from military service by the Medical Board. Though the Court partially allowed the writ petition directing the respondents to hold Review Medical Board for the petitioner but after discussing case law and relevant rules held as under:

When an individual is found suffering from any disease or has sustained injury, he is examined by the medical experts who would not only examine him but also ascertain the nature of disease/injury and also record a decision as to whether the said personnel is to be placed in a medical category which is lower than `AYE' (fit category) and whether temporarily or permanently. They also give a medical assessment and advice as to whether the individual is to be brought before the release/invaliding medical board. The said release/invaliding medical board generally consists of three doctors and they, keeping in view the clinical profile, the date and place of onset of invaliding disease/disability and service conditions, draws a conclusion as to whether the disease/injury has a causal connection with military service or not. On the basis of the same they recommend (a) attributability, or (b) aggravation, or (c) whether connected with service. The second aspect which is also examined is the extent to which the functional capacity of the individual is impaired. The same is adjudged and an assessment is made of the percentage of the disability suffered by the said personnel which is recorded so that the case of the personnel could be considered for grant of disability element of pension. Another aspect which is taken notice of at this stage is the duration for which the disability is likely to continue. The same is assessed/recommended in view of the disease being capable of being improved. All the aforesaid aspects are recorded and recommended in the form AFMSF-16. The Invaliding Medical Board forms its opinion/recommendation on the basis of the medical report, injury report, court of enquiry proceedings, if any, charter of duties relating to peace or field area and of course, the physical examination of the individual.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

It was also held that the opinion given by the doctors of the Medical Board shall be given due weightage and primacy in the matter for ascertaining as to whether or not the injury/illness sustained was due to or was aggravated by the military service which contributed to invalidation from the military service.

At this stage we may also take up the plea raised by the petitioner that the disease from which the petitioner had suffered cannot be said to be constitutional in nature. This submission is sought to be supported by this Court in Satpal Singh v. Union of India and Ors. (supra). In that regard suffice is to say that the ratio of the decision in Satpal Singh's case (supra) is now stood impliedly repealed by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Controller of defense Accounts (Pension) and Ors. v. S. Balachandran Nair reported as . In the said decision, the Supreme Court after considering the various provisions and the decisions on the subject including the case of Union of India and Anr. v. Baljit Singh reported as that Medical Board's opinion to the effect that illness and disability suffered by the respondent therein was not attributable to military service cannot be substituted by the court in order to arrive at a contrary finding. It was also held that where a medical board found that there was absence of proof of the injury/illness having been sustained due to military service or being attributable thereto, the High Court's direction to the Government to pay disability pension was not correct. The Supreme Court also dealt with the contention that the fact that the employee was posted at sensitive border area and, therefore, his illness is fully attributable to military service was negatived by the Supreme Court in the said decision. We may also refer to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Md. Tanwir Alam v. Union of India and Ors. (supra). In the said case also the petitioner was enrolled as Nursing Assistant and while undergoing training he developed the said disease within a short period when the aforesaid disease was diagnosed. Despite the said fact the Division Bench has held that the decision of the appropriate medical authority coming to the conclusion that the disease of the employee was not related to the military service cannot be interfered with.

We may also refer to the decision of Shri Bhagwan (supra). In paragraphs 185, 186 and 187 reference was made to other decisions of the Single Judges of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court overruled the Single Judge's decision holding that when the medical board has given a categorical opinion that the petitioner's ailment was constitutional and even the CCDA had opined that the petitioner was not suffering from any ailment which could be attributed to or aggravated by military service and that it did not exist before or during military service, such opinion could not be set aside merely because it was felt that that the word "constitutional" is not an adequate reason for denying disability pension. In our considered opinion, the law is, therefore, crystal clear on the subject needs no further reiteration.

In the backdrop of the aforesaid legal position which is made clear by several decisions of this Court as also by the Supreme Court the facts of the present case are required to be considered. Here is also a case where the Release Medical Board has given its definite opinion that the disease from which the petitioner is suffering is constitutional in nature and that the said disease and disability is neither attributable to nor aggravated by the military service. The said report of the medical board will have definite primacy, but in the facts of the present case we also find that there was a medical board earlier constituted which examined the petitioner medically and found that there was HYPERTENSION from which the petitioner was suffering. It was held by the said Medical Board that the disease was aggravated by military service. Therefore, there is a conflict of opinion between the two medical boards, one gave its opinion in 1974 whereas the other medical board has given its opinion in 1983. It is true that the despite the opinion given by the medical board in 1974 the petitioner worked with the respondents for 10 more years and he stood discharged from service after completing his tenure. But it is apparent on the records of the case that the petitioner was still suffering in 1983 from the same disease i.e. HYPERTENSION and there was an additional disease, namely, ACHALASIA CARDIA (Optd) from which he was found to be suffering from.

5. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Sub-Lieutenant Chaman Azhar v. Union of India and Ors. (2003) 4 SLR 183 held in favor of the petitioner that Psychiatric disorder was attributable or aggravated by military service. In this case the Court held as under:

In Price's Text Book of the Practice of Medicine, learned author Price has discussed the aetiology of "Schizophrenia" as under:

The role of genetics is undoubtedly important, but recent observations suggested that although genetic factors may be necessary they are not always sufficient for the occurrence of schizophrenic illness; environmental influences can also pay their part in the casual chain. Recent mental stress may sometimes be the starting point of an attack, but in a considerable proportion of these cases the reported overwork, disappointment in love or other painful experience, is found to have been a product of the already existing illness, or the last of a long series of disturbing events. No recent or remote experience is ever sufficient to account for the illness without regard to intrinsic causes. No matter how searchingly the patient's life be resurrected and analysed, it is scarcely ever possible to discover that anything happened to him with which would have led to his adopting a schizophrenic way of shunning daily life unless he had been somehow disposed to it from the beginning; although, of course, much may have happened to him that has strengthened and fostered the disposition.

6. In Text Book of Medicine by Rustom Jal Vakil disease "Schizophrenia" has been discussed as under:

Aetiology; heredity is considered and important factor in the aetiology of the disease. Specialist in genetics have discovered significant difference in the incidence of the illness in monozygotic an dizygotic twins. The nature of genetic transmission is however not clear. Individuals with asthenic builds, thin, tall and wiry frames and with a tendency to be shy, reserved and withdrawn are particularly prone schizophrenia. The vast majority of individuals with such constitutions are usually well adjusted, but if they prove incapable of standing up; to the stresses and strains of life, they tend to develop a schizophrenic type of psychosis. A tendency to withdraw from social and emotional contacts with people and an increasing tendency to withdraw from one's environment are often present long before the actual onset of the illness.18. Similar view in regard to Schizophrenia was taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Ram Niwas Goswami v. Union of India (1999) 7 SLR 458.

19. In the case of Ex-Signalman Shri Bhagwan v. Union of India and Ors. the Court had discussed the entire law in detail with reference to various provisions of the Army Act, Rules, Regulations etc. The propostion of Law stated therein are not a matter of dispute before us. But we must notice that certain provisions, instructions and judgments of different courts were not brought to the notice of the Division Bench. We have to look into the stated principles, keeping in view the amended Regulations as well as the various other judgments of this Court and other Courts, which have been pronounced subsequent to the judgment. The Division Bench after detailed discussion remanded the connected matters to the CDA (P)/ CCDA(P) Allahabad, to reconsider them in light of the conclusions and directions given in the said judgment. The primacy of medical opinion expressed by the Medical Board constituted in light of the above principles can hardly be disputed. The respondents have heavily relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Controller of defense Accounts (Pension) and Ors. v. S. Balachandran Nair to contend that the opinion of the Medical Board is final and cannot be questioned before the Court. The principle of law enunciated by the Supreme court in this case is not a matter of controversy and in any case is binding on the Courts. Their Lordships have clearly indicated that the view expressed by the Medical Board has primacy and would be respected by the Courts. There can be no doubt to the proposition that for the opinion of the Medical Board to attain its primacy as afore-referred, it must be inconformity with the statutory provisions framed by the competent authorities. If a report is ex-facie not inconformity with the various regulations is not supported by any investigative or diagnostic evidence and is arbitrary or ex-facie perverse then it cannot be permitted to have the same value as indicated in the various judgments of the High Courts as well as the Supreme Court. Intensive bioChemical studies have revealed numerous abnormalities, including disturbances of protein carbohydrate metabolisms, enzyme reactions, abnormalities or urine and cerebrospinal fluid and the presence of so-called serum toxins (teraxin). The exact aetiological significance of such charges has however not been elucidated so far. Some consider schizophrenia as an auto immune disorder. This too remains unproved."

20. We have already discussed at great length that the rules and regulations postulate proper application of mind by the Medical Board to arrive at conclusions which would be supported by proper reason or documentation. It is so, primarily for the reason that a member of the force could be invalided from service and there should exist a cause and such cause must have nexus to his discharge inconformity with rules and regulations. It is a settled principle of law that when rules require something to be done then that thing must be done in that manner alone or not. Compliance to the rules would be necessary as far as possible so as to avoid any prejudice to the effective party.

7. Still in another case titled as Shri Navin Chandra v. Union of India and Ors. WP(C) No. 5720/2006 decided on 27th July, 2006) we had an occasion to discuss the effect of the expression `Constitutional' more than often mentioned in the medical records again with regard to attributability and aggravation of the disease from which the member of the force is suffering and his consequential entitlement for grant of pension. In that judgment, the Court held as under:

15. In furtherance to direction of the Court, medical specialists have appeared during the course of hearing of these petitions. In response to query by the Court, the medical specialists have expressed their opinion that 'Constitutional disorder' or 'Constitutional disease' would relate to a situation where the Medical Board is unable to find a cause for the disease which a person is suffering from. In those circumstances, it is recorded that the disease is neither attributable nor aggravated by army service. In other words, if the medical authorities failed to determine cause, onset or arrive at a definite diagnostic opinion in relation to disease of a member of the force, it is bound to adversely affect the interest of the member in relation to grant of disability pension. According to these experts, the constitutional disorder would normally result in recording of remark 'not attributable to nor aggravated by military service' without any further or proper diagnosis. Butterworths Medical Dictionary defines 'Constitutional' as:- "Relating to the state of constitution, inherent in the Constitution of mind or body, relating to the bodily system as a whole". The expression Constitutional Disorder or disease would thus have to be understood even in its common parlance as something which is relatable to human mind and/or body. Its existence in either of them could be specifically diagnosed both in relation to cause, time of its existence as well as onset of the disease. This can hardly be termed as just and fair approach in consonance with rules and regulations. The diseases like Schizophrenia, Neurosis and other Psychiatric related diseases can be aggravated if not attributable to Army service. If they are constitutional diseases or disorders, then they must be relatable to human body and/or mind and can be detected by proper diagnose including the time i.e pre or post joining the Army. It would be required of the authorities concerned to reasonably show on record that such diseases or their basic symptoms existed prior, though the disease manifested later or even co-relate the onset of the diseases to a period prior to the joining of service by the petitioner. It is reasonably expected that the medical experts would be able to even trace the cause, origin of the disease as was done in the case of JC 264149M Ex. Naib Sub Marut Sharan Tiwari v. Union of India and Ors. being CWP No. 23320/2005 decided on 13.7.06

The above principles are squarely applicable to the present cases also. So now we would proceed to discuss the facts of each case in light of the above principles.

WP (c) No. 11698/2004

8. In this case, the petitioner was enrolled as Air Craftsman in the Indian Air Force on 28th June, 1963. He performed all his duties sincerely and was promoted to the rank of Warrant Officer because of his hard work and physical fitness. In April, 1991 after having served the Force for more than 27 years, the petitioner developed certain health problems and was subjected to medical examination by the authorities. He was diagnosed as the case of `Essential Hypertension' and `I.H.D' for which he was treated. The petitioner was placed in low Medical Category CEE and subsequently in a permanent medical category CEE(P). On 30th June, 1997, the petitioner was operated at Batra Hospital for heart bypass surgery and thereafter was placed before properly constituted medical board. The Medical Board recommended that petitioner be released from service in low medical category with 50% disability pension in July 2000. The Commanding Officer of the petitioner upon recommendation of the Medical Board sanctioned 50% disability pension to the petitioner on AFMSF-16. However, this disability claim of the petitioner was declined by PCDA(P) Allahabad in an arbitrary manner on 8th January, 2003. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation and on 7th June, 2004, the Air Head Quarter passed a detailed order stating that the disease of the petitioner was constitutional in nature and was not effected by service and as such the petitioner was not entitled to any benefit. It may be noticed that petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition No. 2288/2004, which was disposed of by the High Court in terms of the judgment of this Court in the case of Ex. Ct. Jasbir Singh v. UOI CWP No. 5166/2000 decided on 6th March, 2003 directing the respondents to consider the case in accordance with law. Reiterating its earlier stand, the Air Head Quarter again declined grant of disability pension to the petitioner. The Original records were produced before the Court. The Medical Board in its proceedings had recorded 20% disablement for Hypertension and 40% for IHD. However, it was stated that the disease of the petitioner was constitutional and was not attributable to or aggravated by military service. Perusal of the report of the Medical Board shows that no reasons have been recorded as to how and on what basis the Medical Board had formed this opinion despite the fact that the petitioner had put in 27 years of service before he was boarded out of service and particularly before 1991 in which year he developed these diseases. The expression `Constitutional', as per service authorities, is an unknown cause, which is recorded to indicate that no specific cause for the disease is traceable. No doubt, in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Controller of defense Accounts (Pension) and Ors. v. S. Balachandran Nair , the medical report has to be given precedence and normally would not to be interfered by the Court but for just exceptions in law, the report must be recorded in conformity with the instructions issued by competent authority for recording a reason based opinion in the proceedings. Furthermore, various provisions in the defense Services Regulations for the Medical Services of the Armed Force, 1962 places an obligation upon the authorities to apply their mind judicially so as to avoid prejudice and harm being caused to the members of the Force. In the present case, the individual has put in 27 years of service and for first 20 years of service, he was found free from problem, was physically fit and was subjected to regular medical check up. He was given his due promotion. Even otherwise, it is commonly accepted fact in the field of Medicine that stress and strain in service is likely to aggravate both Hypertension and IHD even if the same were not attributable to military service. Attributability and aggravation to military service are not twin conditions, which must be satisfied compositively. If one of these conditions exists, the person will be entitled to get pension in light of the provisions of Regulations 173 or 173A or both, as the case may be. We have already noticed that under Annexure III to Appendix II, the disease of Hypertension is expected to affect or aggravate by stress and strain. Another aspect of this case, which may be noticed is that when the petitioner was released, even at that time, it was recorded that the petitioner was in good bodily health and was stated to be suffering from Primary Hypertension and IHD, for which surgery was performed. In the writ petition, the petitioner has taken up the plea of discrimination and arbitrariness on the part of the respondents. According to him, another officer suffering from same disease has been granted disability pension. Averment in this regard has been made in paragraph 15 of the writ petition, which is not specifically denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit filed by them. Annexure P-8 is the order dated 30th May, 2001, which according to the petitioner, relates to Lt. Col. B.S. Dhanda (Retd.), who was suffering from the same disease. Vide this order, Lt. Col. B.S. Dhanda was granted pension for 20% disablement and authorities concerned were directed to issue PPO in his favor. Surely, it cannot be said that Hypertension for one member of the force would be attributable to army service while in the case of other it would not, particularly when there are no distinguishing features pointed out in the counter affidavit.

9. The Medical Board in the present case have assessed composite disability as 50%. Thus, we direct the respondents to consider and grant to the petitioner the disability pension with 50% disability aggravated by military service. However, the arrears payable to the petitioner are restricted to a period of 3 years immediately preceding to the date of filing of the writ petition.

WP(C) No. 13925/2006

10. In this case, the petitioner had joined the military service as combatant soldier on 1st July, 1960. He was posted in N.E.F.A during Indo-China war in 1962. The petitioner remained without food and water for 12 days at the height of 18000 feet. He also participated in Indo-Pak war in 1965 at Khemkaran Sector. He was granted commission on 21st July, 1980, keeping in view his distinguished service and was promoted to the rank of Major on 1st October, 1992. On 20th February, 1993, he was diagnosed for the following diseases:

(i)IHD

(ii)Hyper Tension

11. As a result of these diseases the petitioner was invalided out of military service on 31st October, 1994 with 30% disability. However, the PCDA(P) Allahabad had issued PPO only for service element of pension and declined to give 30% disability element of pension to the petitioner. Against this action, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 29th July, 1994, which was dismissed. Against this arbitrary action of the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of present writ petition.

12. As is clear, the petitioner has come to the Court after a considerable unexplained delay but in view of settled principles, the petition cannot be dismissed on this ground alone particularly when the law and various judgments of the Court are in favor of the petitioner.

13. Original medical records were produced before us. The report of the medical board shows that the petitioner was suffering from IHD and Hypertension and his disability was 20% for IHD and 40% for Hypertension. The Medical Board had stated the disability No. 1 as `Constitutional'. However, the Medical Board had recorded `NA' for the second disease.

14. For what we have already recorded in the case of Ex. W.O. S.S. Gautam v. Union of India and Ors. WP(C) No. 11698/2004, this writ petition deserves to be allowed while restricting the arrears to the period of 3 years immediately preceding to the filing of the petition.

WP(C) No. 6112/2006

15. The petitioner, Prabhu Ram, was enrolled in Indian Army on 16th January, 1953 as a soldier and was discharged from service on 4th February, 1968. The petitioner was again enrolled in defense Security Corps (D.S.C.) on 18th March, 1969 where he served for another 4 years and was invalided out of service on medical grounds with effect from 24th August, 1973 after declaring medically unfit in low medical category i.e. EEE(P). The petitioner was granted disability pension for 100% disability up to 1983/84. Subsequently, it was discontinued. Against this arbitrary action, the petitioner had approached the respondents vide his representation dated 28th September, 2002 whereby he requested the authorities to communicate the correct information to the petitioner and grant him the requisite pension. The respondents then vide their letter dated 22nd November, 2002 informed the petitioner that no details were available with the respondents. The petitioner again made a representation on 2nd December, 2002, which was declined by the Records Office on the ground that PCDA(P) Allahabad has rejected his request for grant of disability pension. The petitioner was informed that the petitioner had not filed any appeal against the said order and at this belated stage, nothing can be considered to grant disability pension to the petitioner. This has resulted in filing of the present petition.

16. Original medical record has been produced before the Court From the perusal of the same, the averments made by the petitioner appear to be correct. The petitioner had rendered 16 years of service from 1953 to 1969 in the Army and thereafter was employed in defense Security Corps where he served for four years. In 1969 he was not invalided out of military service. However, subsequently, he was stated to be suffering from paranoid Schizophrenia. In the medical record annexed to medical proceeding of the invaliding medical board, it has been stated that he was sick earlier and there was no evidence of any organic disease. No history of such disease or element in the family was recorded in the proceedings. First attack was suffered by the petitioner on 19th June, 1973. Disability of the petitioner was recorded to be 50%.

17. The petitioner has relied upon Regulations 173 and the judgment of this Court in the case of Jasbir Singh v. Union of India CWP No. 5166/2000 decided on 6th March, 2003 in support of his claim.

18. We may notice that the order of the authorities dated 22nd November, 2002 patently suffers from non-application of mind inasmuch as the disability pension of the petitioner was declined on the sole ground that record of Re-survey Medical Board was not available. This is factually not correct as the records have been produced even before us during the course of hearing. It is the obligation of the Records Office to fully cooperate and coordinate with other branches of PCDA(P) Allahabad while dealing with pension cases of the members of the Force. The petitioner was granted initially 100% disability pension, which was subsequently reduced to 50%. The petitioner was granted 50% disability pension vide medical board proceedings dated 30th July, 1973.

19. For the reasons, which we have afore-referred in the case of Ex. W.O. S.S. Gautam v. Union of India and Ors. WP(C) No. 11698/2004, the petitioner would be entitled to get disability pension with 50% disability as the disease of the petitioner is attributable or aggravated by military service. However, the petitioner would be entitled to claim the arrears of disability pension only for a period of 3 years immediately preceding the filing of the present petition.

20. In view of our above discussion, all the three writ petitions are allowed but the petitioner would not be entitled to claim arrears of the relief granted in excess of the period of 3 years immediately preceding to the filing of the present writ petitions. The parties are left to bear their own costs.