Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Ors. vs Maj Prasanna V Retd Sl 4628 A on 24 October, 2024
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~68
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 24.10.2024
+ W.P.(C) 14994/2024
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr.Manish Kumar, SPC,
Mr.Ram Kumar, Mr.Sushil
Kumar, Advs. with Major Anis
Murlidhar.
versus
MAJ PRASANNA V RETD SL 4628 A .....Respondent
Through: Mr.Shakti Chand Jaidwal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 62830/2024 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 14994/2024 & CM APPL. 62829/2024
2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed by the petitioners, challenging the order dated 21.12.2023
passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'AFT') in OA No. 14/2021 titled
Maj Prasannan V (Retd) v. Union of India & Ors., which has
directed as under:
"23. Therefore, in view of our analysis the OA
14/2021 is allowed and the Respondents are
directed to grant benefit of disability element
of pension @30% for life for Schizophrenia
rounded off to 50% for life in view of judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India
Vs. Ram Avtar (supra) from the date of
invalidment i.e. 04.08.2009. The arrears shall
be disbursed to the applicant within three
months of receipt of this order failing which it
shall earn interest @ 6% p.a. till the actual
date of payment. However, in as much as the
instant OA has been filed with delay, the
arrears in view of the verdict of UOI & Ors Vs
Tarsem Singh 2009 (1) AISLJ 371, will
commence to run a period of three years prior
to institution of the present OA i.e.
07.12.2020."
3. The petitioners, in challenge to the said order, submits that the
learned AFT has erred in law and on facts in drawing a presumption
that the disability suffered by the respondent herein was attributable to
or aggravated by service.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners, placing reliance on the
Medical Board Proceedings and the Service Record of the petitioner,
submits that the respondent herein has, in fact, been posted on a
clerical post/records for the entire portion of his service except for the
first posting which was the mandatory field posting. He submits that
therefore, the disability, that is, Schizophrenia with which the
respondent was detected, cannot be said to have been caused or as
being aggravated by service. He submits that the disease is, in fact,
constitutional, hereditary and a genetic disorder.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent, who appears on
advance notice, submits that these issues have been duly considered
by the learned AFT and there is no reason for this Court to interfere in
the same.
6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties.
7. In the present case, we find that the learned AFT has taken
specific notice of the stand of the respondent that during his first
posting itself, he was posted to 15 SIKHLI Regiment for Counter
Insurgency Operations against ULFA insurgents in Assam, where he
was made a part of OPS Rhino, wherein he led from the front during
various raids on ULFA hideouts, thereby killing at least 24 militants
and apprehending another 128 militants. The respondent had to spend
sleepless nights while undertaking cordon and search operations
during silent hours, due to which, he developed the sleep
disorder/Insomnia. In 2001, the respondent was admitted to Military
Hospital, Jabalpur, where he was diagnosed as being suffering from
Schizophrenia. Though the applicant's disability arose at a peace area
i.e. Panchmarhi, the same occurred within one year of having served
in Counter Insurgency Ops area and therefore, the disability of the
Schizophrenia was held to be attributable to military service by the
learned AFT. It was noted that it may be due to the delayed
manifestation of exposure to tremendous stress and strain.
8. The learned AFT has also taken note of the remarks of
Commanding Officer in Paragraph 5 of Part III of the IMB
proceedings, which stated that the respondent's duties involved
severe/exceptional stress and strain.
9. This Court is not sitting as an Appellant Authority over the
decision taken by the learned AFT. We find no jurisdictional error
having been committed by the learned AFT.
10. We, therefore, find no merit in the present petition. The same is
accordingly dismissed. The pending application also stands disposed
of.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
SHALINDER KAUR, J
OCTOBER 24, 2024/Arya/as
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
