31 Yrs On Rajasthan HC Grants Disability Pension To Ex-Sepoy; Says Army Didn't Conduct Medical Exam Or Disclose Disease In Discharge Order

The Rajasthan High Court, while granting relief to an Ex-Sepoy after 31 years of his discharge in 1995 owing to a neurological disease that he developed during services, noted that no medical exam was conducted prior to his discharge and was his medical history/disease was "deliberately" not disclosed in the veteran's discharge order. He was denied the benefit of disability/invalid pension under Pension Regulations for the Army 1961 (“1961 Regulations”). The division bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal and Justice Ravi Chirania observed that before his discharge, no Release Medical Board (RMB) was conducted, neither the medical history was filled in his discharge order. It was opined that such conduct clearly indicated malice and intention to deliberately conceal the medical reason behind his discharge."It is also an admitted and undisputed fact that, before issuance of the discharge order dated 01.06.1995, petitioner was not subjected to RMB, and respondents have miserably failed to furnish any explanation or justified reason for non-conducting of medical examination of petitioner through RMB prior to his discharge, more particularly when the petitioner had remained hospitalized on two previous occasions on account of suffering from the disease, RNP (Rt), and furthermore, he was admitted in the hospital a day before of his discharge from service.It is noteworthy that in the order of discharge/ certificate of service of petitioner (Annexure-1), the relevant column pertaining to his medical history has been left blank and unfilled by respondents. On the face value, non-conducting of medical examination of petitioner through RMB by respondents, itself shows malice and negligence on their part. Further, nonmentioning of the medical history of petitioner in the discharge order, in the relevant column, further substantiates that the disease of petitioner was sought to be concealed/ hide, and was deliberately not disclosed by respondents, for the reasons best known to them"For context, the Court was hearing a petition filed by an Ex-Sepoy seeking directions for discharge of disability/invalid pension under the 1961 Regulations. The petitioner had discharged a service of more than 10 years as a Sepoy of the Army before he was discharged in 1995. It was contended that during his service he developed a neurological disease due to postings in adverse weather conditions. He was also hospitalized on 3 different occasions in different army hospitals in relation to this disease. However, when he was discharged from service in 1995, just 2 days after his 3rd hospitalization, no RMB was conducted to assess his disability. Further, in the discharge order, the column of medical history was also left blank. It was alleged by the petitioner that the same was done to conceal the disease of the petitioner and the actual reason behind his discharge, so that the liability of giving disability/invalid pension could be evaded. On the contrary, it was argued by the State that the petitioner was discharged pursuant to being punished on 5 different occasions and 5 red-ink entries, owing to which he was an inefficient and undisciplined soldier in the Army. Further, it was submitted that the petition was filed by the petitioner after an inordinate delay of 14 years from his discharge. After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted that the respondents failed miserably in furnishing any explanation or justified reasons for not conducting the RMB or leaving the medical history blank in the discharge order. “Non-subjecting petitioner to RMB before his discharge, despite his previous medical history, is one of the biggest and most serious shortfall on the part of respondents.”The Court held that the discharge of the petitioner was fundamentally due to his disease, even though the same was not specifically mentioned in his discharge order. The Court further opined that the provisions of the 1961 Regulations were in the nature of a beneficial scheme, intended to help the servicemen in hard times, who were discharged from service. Hence, a liberal approach was required to be adopted while construing these beneficial provisions. In relation to the punishments and red-ink entries awarded to the petitioner, it was opined that, “…four punishments were awarded to petitioner within a span of one year, i.e., during 1994, and at that point of time, petitioner was suffering from the disease RNP (Rt), a neurotic disorder. Therefore, it is a matter of drawing an inference and presumption that infractions in discharging his duties with due discipline during the said period, were primarily on account of petitioner's neurotic disorder and certainly may not be considered intentional or deliberate acts on his part.”It was observed that awarding four or more red ink entries could not be considered a mandate for discharging from service. Hence, discharging the petitioner solely based on the red-ink entries did not stand in consonance with the settled...

31 Yrs On Rajasthan HC Grants Disability Pension To Ex-Sepoy; Says Army Didn't Conduct Medical Exam Or Disclose Disease In Discharge Order

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Agrawal

31 Yrs On Rajasthan HC Grants Disability Pension To Ex-Sepoy; Says Army Didn't Conduct Medical Exam Or Disclose Disease In Discharge Order

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers