By the Court:— Through this writ petition, which was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, an invalidated Army Captain, who died on 4 September, 1997, and substituted by his widow and minor children vide order, dated 6 September, 2000, a prayer has been made to quash the order, dated August 2, 1991, as contained in Annexure 12 and the order, dated January 8, 1996 as contained in Annexure SA 1.

1.1 Annexure 12 is a communication made by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence to the Chief of the Army Staff, New Delhi, intimating the following: that he has been directed to say that it has been decided that the disability viz., schizophrenia on account of which the petitioner was invalidated out of service should be regarded —. neither attributable to nor aggravated by his military service as the disease is constitutional in nature and unrelated to service.

1.2 Annexure-SAI is a communication made to the petitioner by the Additional Secretary to Government of India through Letter No. 7 (100) 9 Defence (Pension/Appeal). Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi, dated January 8, 1996, intimating that the appeal dated 18 November, 1991, has been fully considered by the Appeal Committee which found that in the accident dated 2 May, 1986. much injury has not been inflicted nor has it affected his mental condition and the main reason for his abnormal behaviour is that he became frightened on account of ulcer operation; and his disability is neither attributable to the military service nor was it aggravated on that account.

The pleadings:

2. The writ petition asserts, inter alia, that at the time of joining of the U.P Sainik School, the writ-petitioner was medically examined at Command Hospital, Central Command, Lucknow, and was found medically fit and nothing abnormal detected and on the basis of that medical test he was admitted; having completed his studies he appeared in the competitive examination for selection in National Defence Academy and on account of his ability and talent, was admitted after his examination at Military Hospital, Bhopal, where also nothing abnormal was detected and was found quite fit; after completion of his graduation from the National Defence Academy, Pune, he joined Indian Military Academy, Dehradun, as trainee; after completion of the training he joined Indian Army as Second Lieutenant on 2 June, 1982; and was promoted on 12 June, 1984 as Lieutenant; during his medical examinations from 1982 to 1984 nothing abnormal was detected; on 12 June, 1985 he was promoted as Captain; in July 1985, he was posted at Chamb, Nathus, Tibba and Teri Sector in Jammu and Kashmir, where clean and pure water was not available and he had to drink dirty nalah water and do 24 hours duty due to which he developed stomach trouble and acute constipation problem; despite complaint he was not given any medical aid; in September, 1985 he was sent for training or junior Staff Commission at Belgaon, where he developed further trouble inasmuch as bleeding started from his mouth and was sent to Military Hospital, Belgaon, where too, he could not get proper medical treatment; thereafter he was referred to Command Hospital, Southern Command, Pune, where Duodenal Ulcer was detected but no mental abnormality was found, from where he was discharged on 13 November, 1985 (report Annexure 1) and posted at 10, Bihar Regiment at Ranchi; while he was going on 2 May, 1986 on scooter from Officer's Colony, Ranchi to Officer's mess for taking dinner, he met an accident and received certain injuries but he was not given proper medical, aid rather given only the first aid; his father was informed of his condition vide letter as contained in Annexure 2 on receipt of which his father went to Ranchi, where he was insisted by the officer-commanding Rear Major Ganesh Sah to take him home on which he was brought home by his father; his father got him admitted in Command Hospital, Lucknow, where he received treatment, including psychiatric treatment from 10 June, 1986 to 15 December, 1986; thereafter he joined his duties in December, 1986, as the officer concerned had an apprehension that he is suffering from mental disease he was again sent for medical examination at Medical Hospital, Danapur, for psychiatric report; after examination vide report, dated 8 June, 1987 (as contained in Annexure 3) nothing abnormal was detected; on 12 October, 1987, he was again examined by a psychiatric and it was for the first time that a report (as contained in Annexure 4) was made regarding abnormality in his behaviour and mental out-look; in April, 1988 he was again sent for medical examination and it was this time diagnosed that he is suffering from schizophrenic psychosis; his father received notice, dated 25 May, 1989 (as contained in Annexure 6) under rule 15-A Sub-para (2) of the Army Rules, 1954, requiring him to prefer a petition against the findings of the Medical Board to the Chief of the Army Staff through President, Medical Board; his father was sent yet another letter, dated 29 May, 1989 (as contained in Annexure 7) declaring him invalid on the basis of the report of the Medical Board; his father sent his reply, dated 14 June, 1989 (as contained in Annexure 8) to the Chief of the Army Staff through the President of the Medical Board against the aforesaid invaldement report of the Medical Board; vide order, dated 26 April, 1990 (as contained in Annexure 11) he was declared invalid for military service; thereafter he received the impugned order (as contained in Annexure 12); on account of the aforesaid disablement and invalidment, he is fully entitled at least for disability pension, if attributable and aggravated by military service; against the aforesaid letter be made a representation to the Under Secretary on which he received the impugned order (as contained in Annexure-SAI), from the facts aforementioned by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the disease in question is constitutional in nature; he is fit for all services and his behaviour and conduct is normal; his disability, if any, has developed during his employment on account of hard life and accident and thus he is fully entitled for disability pension.

3. In the counter-affidavit, which has been filed by Lieutenant Colonel S. Sudarsan posted as Qualified Specialist (Psychiatric), Command Hospital (EC) Calcutta, it has been stated, inter alia, that schizophrenia is a constitutional disorder which can manifest itself at any time, it is chronic and has frequent relapses; the disorder is conceptualized as a syndrome that is heterogeneous in its cause, pathogenesis, presenting picture, course, response to treatment, and outcome; unless the symptoms are manifested, there are no means of detecting or predicting the possibility of this disease at the time of selection; promotion in army is a routine administrative matter; armed forces makes arrangement for safe drinking water even in the most remote and uncongenial areas/places where troops of the Indian Army has to serve; and serving at Field Areas is an essential service requirement for an army personnel and that cannot be any exception to it; after the petitioner was diagnosed as suffering from Duodenal Ulcer, he was given complete medical treatment and kept under lower medical category for surveillance and on full recovery was upgraded, there is no medical record whatsoever of any injury in relation to the alleged scooter accident, hence it is evident that the nature of injury. If at all sustained, was trivial; the letter of Major Ganesh Sah (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) itself shows that the petitioner was already showing early features suggestive of schizophrenia prior to the scooter accident; the allegations made in Para. 12 are denied and in reply it is submitted that the petitioner was duly admitted in the Military Hospital and schizophrenia was diagnosed and was treated for the same and on recovery was placed in medical category S 3 (T-24) with effect from December 18, 1986; report on AFMSF-10 (Armed Forces Medical Services Form) (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) was initiated in June 1987, for routine review and re categorisation which was due and his behaviour was reported as normal as he remained in a state of remission; in October 1987, the petitioner showed feature of relapse of Schizophrenia for which a fresh AFMSF 10 for his hospitalisation and treatment was initiated; surprisingly the petitioner has made no mention of his AFMSF-10 initiated at the first hospitalization in May/June, 1986; it is wrong to say that abnormality in his behaviour was detected for the first time in October 1987; the fact is that it was detected for the first time in the year 1986, in April/May, 1988, he had a relapse of schizophrenia again. Schizophrenia was not caused by the alleged scooter accident as claimed by him; the military service has no bearing either in causation or aggravation in the case of the petitioner and is a very serious aliment and thus it would not be in the interest of army to retain him; in annexure 13 the petitioner himself admits that he is still not mentally well and is continuing treatment and accordingly his contention that he is normal and fit for service is incorrect; the deponent himself is a qualified psychiatrist with full sense of responsibility submits that a person suffering from schizophrenia is prone to unpredictable and unprovoked violent behaviour and is a threat to safety of others and self as such also he is not fit for military service; as the disability pension is granted to a person only when the disability is either attributable to or aggravated by military service; the deponent respectfully submits to refer to the opinion of Col: Rajendra Singh, Senior Adviser (PSY) of CH (EC), Calcutta, as contained in Annexure 11; thus this writ petition be dismissed which has been filed on the grounds which are wholly misconceived and unsustainable in law. Annexure CA1 states, (inter alia, the history of the petitioner from time to time on account of the disease in question and even of filing of a divorce case by his wife.

4. A rejoinder to the aforementioned counter-affidavit sworn by the father of the petitioner has been filed by and large repeating the allegations made in the writ petition.

The submissions:

5. Sri Shesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended as follows:

(i) The impugned order as contained in Annexure 12 is a non-speaking and cryptic order and accordingly it is liable to be quashed.

(ii) in view of Cl. 7 (b) of Appendix II since schizophrenia had led to discharge of the petitioner it will be ordinarily deemed to have arisen in service as no note of it was made at the time his entry in the service. As held by this Court in Sanjiv Jaggi (Ex. Lt.) v. Union of India [1994 (2) L.L.N 478]. In which the writ petitioner who was an army officer and discharged from army on account of suffering from schizophrenia and who, too, had moved for giving disability pension on that ground which was rejected on the ground that he had not earned disability due to military service, this Court held that he is entitled to disability pension under the relevant rules apart from awarding cost of Rs. 1,000.

He also referred to Anil Kumar Mishra v. Union of India [(1996) 2 U.P.L.B.E.C 761], and Yashpal Singh Mehra v. Union of India [(1998) 1 U.P.L.B.E.C 708], wherein military authorities have refused to grant disability pension. It was held by this Court that if no note was made at the time of acceptance of the petitioner in service, then it will be presumed that the disease will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service.

He also referred to Shiv Murti Rai v. Union of India [(1997) 2 U.P.L.B.E.C 1179], wherein it was held by this Court that since the disease in question had led to the discharge of the original petitioner in terms of rule 7(b) of the Entitlement Rules, which was not detected by medical examination either before or at the time of entering of his service, it will be presumed that disability has been caused due to the rigour of the military service and for rebutting this presumption there should have been strong authoritative and cogent reasons to rule out that the disease would be attributed to the service and accordingly the impugned orders be set aside and the respondents be directed to grant pension to the substituted petitioners who are widow and minor children of the original petitioner.

He lastly referred to Madan Singh Shekhawat v. Union of India [2000 (1) L.L.N 89], wherein the Supreme Court held that the rules governing disability pension being a beneficial provision should be interpreted liberally so as to give them a wider meaning than a restricted meaning.

5.1 Sri Satish Kumar Rai, learned standing counsel for the Union, appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, prayed to dismiss this writ petition contending as follows:

(i) The order as contained in Annexure 12 is a speaking one containing a relevant ground.

(ii) The Medical Texts vide—

(a) Price's Text Book of the Practice of Medicine, Tenth Edition, published by The English Language Book Society and Oxford University Press; and.

(b) ‘Psychiatry Disorders’ by Gurmeet Singh schizophrenia is a genetic disease the symptoms of which ultimately develop when the person suffering from it is acted upon by stress which may be biological (inflation of brain damage) or environmental (e.g, family situation).

(iii) As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Baljit Singh, [(1996) 11 SCC 315], under rule 173 disability pension would be computed only when disability has occurred due to a wound, injury or disease which is attributable to military service or existed before or arose during military service and has been and remains aggravated during the military service and in terms of Cl. (c) of Para. 7 if a disease is accepted as having arisen in service, it must also be established that the conditions of military service determined or contributed the onset of the disease and that the conditions were due to the circumstances of duty in military service and unless these conditions are satisfied, it cannot be said that the sustenance of injury per se is on account of military service and in each case, when such a pension is sought for and made a claim, it must be affirmatively established, as a fact, as to whether the injury sustained was due to military service or was aggravated which contributed to invalidation for the military service. Here the petitioner has failed to establish the relevant facts.

(iv) The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are clearly distinguishable on facts and do not apply to the instant case, besides to a great extent contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Baljit Singh (supra).

6. Sri Shesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, repeated his submissions pointing out that the decision of the Supreme Court is distinguishable since it has not expressly considered the presumptions flowing from Para. 7(b) as held by this Hon'ble Court in Shiv Murti Rai (vide supra).

Our findings:

7. Annexure 6 is the notice informing the petitioner that the Medical Board held at Command Hospital (EC) 27 on May 25, 1989, found him to be suffering from schizophrenia and permanently unfit for any form of military service and in view of these findings, he will be invalidated from service and if he wish, may prefer a petition against the findings aforementioned to the Chief of Army Staff through President, Medical Board.

7.1 Annexure 7 is a document forwarding show-cause notice along with 9 copies of pro forma for reply with request to return 8 copies duly completed for submitting to higher authorities.

7.2 Annexure 8 is the appeal preferred by the father of the petitioner stating following facts:

“(1) Quite sometime back, I had myself informed my son that in the event of immature and incorrect diagnose/treatment of my son, i.e, instead of directing him to some seasoned neurologist (after his head injury at Ranchi while on duty), which the nature of ailment strikingly desired, he was treated purely in a most general manner and, therefore, I had apprehended that a day might come when the family will receive a kind of letter as it is.

(2) In fact, I am a very poor father and I do not want to pen here with how much difficulties I had shaped my eldest son above named, who has been mercilessly treated and now attempted to be ousted from the military core only by filling up the necessary paraphaermalies.

(3) I strongly feel his case has still hopes, if he is provided a fair and desired medical assistance. To wilfully kill him would mean to ruin the sad family. A team of neurologists, I am confident, would certainly save him from the disaster.

(4) Military wing in my eyes is an honoured dignified and judicious wing but in the case of my son I should be excused to say that I had to undergo with very very sad experience and now I find that the faulty decisions shall maroon the happiness of the entire family if not checked up.

(5) Medicine and surgery at these days has no Sound and to drop the ideas of saving a person has frightened me. My son is quite well. He also finds no problems with his health. The most technical ailment can be got cured and he also feels so. If he himself has developed so much will power in himself and you would agree that every thing shall be certainly fine if desired and considered with a cool and sympathetic attitude.

(6) I do not blame the military doctors but certainly there must be more clear and seasoned physicians whose treatments in such cases, keeping patients will power oh upper hand, would help and I wish that his case once be further looked into to sooth this dying family and to cure your own captain on whom the Government has spent a lot.

(7) I further pray that he should be properly treated medically and not treated in huriness. My son was put on Lithium Therapy treatment, but the treatment was not completed and senior Adviser Col. Rajendra Singh, invalidated my son out of service without waiting for proper results of Lithium Therapy treatment.

(8) As my son is a case of head injury since May, 1986, he was not referred to any neurologist by doctor's treating him at Command Hospital, Lucknow, pay ward, and No. CAT SC ANING was done.

Now, I further request your honour to kindly refer my son to an eminent neurologist/psychiatrist at All India Institute of Medical Science and treat my son on Government expenses since army doctor's feel that my son still suffering from schizophrenia. As per me. I feel my son a absolutely alright and a lot of injustices have been done to my son. In this case of old head injury CAT SCANING may kindly be done by M1.Machine which is only available at Army Hospital, Delhi (New Delhi)”.

7.3 Annexures 9 and 10 are his representations to the Prime Minister.

7.4 Annexure 11 is the communication informing him that the Command Authority has accepted the invalidating Medical Board Proceedings on April 3, 1990 and of grant of allowances, etc., opining that the petitioner is fit for suitable civil service.

7.5 Annexure 12 is the impugned order already referred to in Para. 1.1

7.6 Annexure 13 is the petitioner's disability claim made before the Under Secretary without any proof to support the same.

8. Let us have a look at the relevant rules.

8.1 Rule 173 reads as follows:

“173. Unless otherwise specifically provided, a disability pension may be granted to an individual who is invalided from service on account of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service and is assessed at 20 per cent or over.

The question whether a disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service shall be determined under the rule in Appendix II”.

8.2 Relevant rule 7 of Appendix II reads thus:

“7. In respect of diseases, the following rules will be observed:

(a) cases, in which it is established that conditions of military service did not determine or contribute to the onset of the disease but influenced the subsequent course of the disease, will fall for acceptance on the basis of aggravation.

(b) A disease which has led to an individual's discharge or death will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service if no note of it was made at the time of the individual's acceptance for military service. However, if medical opinion holds, for reasons to be stated, that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior to acceptance for service, the disease will not be deemed to have arisen during service.

(c) If a disease is accepted as having arisen in service, it must also be established that the conditions of military service determined or contributed on the onset of the disease and that the conditions were due to the circumstances of duty in military service.

(d) In considering whether a particular disease is due to military service. It is necessary to relate the established facts, in the aetiology of the disease and of its normal development, to the effect that conditions of service, e.g, exposure, stress, climate, etc., may have had on its manifestation. Regard must also be had to the time factor. (Also see Annexure-1)”.

9. Now we take up the first contention.

9.1 As already noted by us, the document as contained in Annexure 12 is not an order but a communication wherein it has been stated that schizophrenia is a constitutional disease in nature and not related to service. The question, therefore, before us is as to whether this reason mentioned is vitiated on account of any error.

9.2 We have had the advantage of Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine Vol. 2. International Edition, XII Edn, wherein at pages 2128–2130 schizophrenia disorders have been discussed at length, the relevant part of which is as follows:

“Aetiology Genetic Factors: It is clear from twin, family, and adoptive studies that schizophrenia has a significant genetic basis. Monozygotic twins have roughly a 65 per cent or greater concordance rate for schizophrenia, whereas dizygotic twins have a 12 per cent concordance rate. Other family studies show that the morbid risk for developing schizophrenia is 5 to 10 per cent if one parent is schizophrenic. This figure rises to 46 per cent of more if both parents are schizophrenics. Second-degree relatives of schizophrenics run a 2 to 4 per cent risk of developing the illness compared to a risk of 1 to 2 percent in the general population.

Adoption studies reveal that these risk factors are largely genetically linked and are not primarily due to the “schizophrenic” psychosocial environment of certain families. Still, these figures are fraught with methodologic complexities. For example reflecting the probable complex mode of inheritance, 89 per cent of schizophrenics do not have a parent who is schizophrenic. Eighty-one per cent of schizophrenics do not have either a schizophrenic sibling or parent. The appropriate model with which to explain these figures is complex and may include a weighted polygenic model or other sophisticated interpretations of genetic theory. Most recently, there has been an explosion of new knowledge about the genetics of schizophrenia, featuring molecular studies and the linkages to chromosome 5 and possibly X (see the entire Vol. 15, No. 3, of Schizophrenia Bulletin, 1989, and Crow et al).

The stress-diathesis model hypothesizes that there is vulnerability which is inherited in schhizophrenia-prone individuals. These vulnerable individuals are at high risk for developing schizophrenia under certain stressful circumstances”.

9.3 In Price's Text book of the Practice of Medicine, Tenth Edition at Page 1185 it has been stated as under:

“Aetiology

Intrinsic. The intrinsic factors are very important. Studies of the incidence in twins and in the members of a family demonstrate a hereditary factor in a majority of cases. If one of monozygotic pair of twins be schizophrenic, the other is also in 76 per cent, of cases, whereas the corresponding percentage among dizygotic twins is only 14. The nature of the mode of transmission is still in doubt; the most recent observations suggest a single recessive factor which must be inherited from both parents. Spontaneous mutations probably occur frequently. Variations in the manifestation of the disorder may be in part dependent on a nonspecific character controlled by a multifactorial genetic mechanism.

The constitutional features that betoken an innate predisposition to this illness are more of the psychological than the physical kind. The bodily attributes have been said to be an ‘asthenic’ or ‘ectomorph’ (Weedy and lank), arthetic or dyspla build; but since these are found in much, the same proportion among healthy people as among schizophrenics, and the correlations between habitus and diagnosis are not convincing, there is little to be said for them here. It is, however, certain that ‘pyknic’ build (see P. 1178) is uncommon among schizophrenics. More significant, however, are the features of personality, commonly called ‘schizoid’; they are to be found in a large number of cases, though not by any means in all. The patient is reported to have shown slight peculiarities from his earliest years; he has been quiet, shy and solitary, a model child, given more to daydreaming or abstract speculation than to ordinary interest and activity, sometimes he has been unduly submissive and sentimentally affectionate, or touchy, suspicious, obstinate, and resentful of advice and control. A single ‘typical’ schizoid personality is a myth. It is, moreover, to be stressed that a ‘frozen’ description of the schizoid varieties of personality does not do Justice to the true state of affairs; characteristic deviations from the conventional norm of behaviour can always be understood better if the patient's way of dealing with his circumstances is viewed historically as a biography of individual tendencies and experiences, rather than described as a bundle of traits. By paying heed to the development of faulty as well as healthy habits of response, the psychiatrist can often see the march of events that led up to the patient's illness, and escape too artificial a sundering of inherent tendencies from the external happening by which these tendencies have been evoked and given shape and substance”.

9.4 In the book named “Psychiatry” containing the article captioned “Psychotic Disorders” by Gurmeet Singh at pages 1295–96 produced by Sri Rai it has been stated as follows:

“Schizophrenia

AETIOLOGY

Since it is probably a heterogeneous disorder, its exact aetiology is not known. The best way to conceptualise the role of various factors in its aetiology is the ‘stress-diathesis’ model. This postulates that certain individuals with a specific vulnerability (diathesis) which could be biological (genetic predisposition) or environmental, when acted upon by some stress which again may be biological (infection or brain damage) or environmental (e.g stressful family situation), ultimately develop clinical symptoms of schizophrenia.

Genetic: Family and adoption studies provide evidence of a genetic vulnerability for schizophrenia. Whereas the risk in the general population is 1 per cent, the risk in a child with one schizophrenic parent increases to 40 per cent. The risk in a monozygotic twin of a schizophrenic patient is 47 per cent”.

9.5 Admittedly, earlier the Medical Board had opined against the petitioner in rebuttal of which no material was produced by the petitioner in the form of any medical opinion opining that the disease in question was on account of the factors alleged in the claim petition (Annexure 13) and thus, we cannot record a finding of fact as to whether the writ-petitioner had contacted the disease on account of his service conditions as claimed in the writ petition.

The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Baljit Singh (vide supra), laid down that: under rule 173, disability pension would be computed only when the disability has occurred due to a wound, injury or disease which is attributable to military service or existed before or arose during the military service and has been and remains aggravated during the military service. If these conditions are satisfied, necessarily the incumbent is entitled to the disability pension. This is made amply clear from Cls. (a) to (d) of Para. 7 which contemplates that in respect of a disease, the Rules enumerated thereunder require to be observed. Clause (c) provides that if a disease is accepted as having arisen in service, it must also be established that the conditions of military service determined or contributed the onset of the disease and that the conditions were due to the circumstances of duty in military service. Unless these conditions are satisfied, it cannot be said that sustenance of injury per se is on account of military service. In view of the report of the Medical Board of doctors, it is not due to military service ………………In each case, when disability pension is sought for and made a claim, it must be affirmatively established, as a fact, as to whether the injury sustained was due to military service or was aggravated which contributed to invalidation for the military service”.

9.6 In this backdrop, let us proceed to examine the assertions made in the writ petition:

The writ-petitioner firstly claims that during his posting in Jammu and Kashmir, he had to drink dirty nalah water as clean and pure water was not available. The petitioner in his claim petition, however, has stated that he had to take nalah water for 5 months. He has not stated that this nalah water was dirty. In this regard it has been stated by the respondents that everywhere drinking water was available.

In September. 1985 in Military Hospital. Belgaon, he could not get proper treatment. In Para. 9 of the counter, it has been asserted that he was given complete medical treatment.

On 2 May, 1986 he met with an accident while he was going from Officers' Colony to Officers Mess for taking dinner and received certain injuries but curiously enough, he was not given proper medical treatment/aid whereas in the claim petition he asserts that on 2 May, 1986, Major Ganesh Sah had called him atonce. A perusal of the claim petition shows that thereafter, the petitioner was also kept in a closed room under supervision of 4 guards which irritated him which had continued for 5 days. To us it appears that it may be on account of his aggressive behaviour. Even allegation of committal of forgery has been made against Major Sah in signing for him in the annual leave application, which has not been stated as fact in the writ petition. The denial of the allegations in the counter-affidavit has not been rebutted by production of any cogent material even before this Court.

We find some substance in regard to the reply of the respondents that in the letter addressed by Major Ganesh Sah as contained in Annexure 2, the writ-petitioner had expressed his fear that once he got admitted and operated, he may not survive and this feeling of his has made him upset and the officer and other people found his behaviour slightly erratic on 5 May, 1986. His further claim that he was not given proper treatment has also been denied.

10. In Ex. Lt. Sanjiv Jaggi v. Union of India [1994 (2) L.L.N 478] (vide supra), a learned single Judge of this Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the disability pension under the relevant rules in the backdrop that the opinion of the Medical Board, which was in his favour, was treated to be final unless reversed by D.G, AFMFS, the final authority, and that the decision of the Defence Ministry was not supported by any valid reason or valid ground nor by the opinion of any higher medical authority in military service than the Medical Board. Here the medical opinion was against the petitioner.

10.1 In Yashpal Singh Mehra (vide supra), the learned Single Judge took notice of the facts stated in the medical opinion, viz., that the writ petitioner had contacted the disease while in service and in the circumstances over which he had no control the same was attributable to conditions of service. In Anil Kumar Mishra and Shiv Murti Rai (vide supra), it is true that the learned Single Judges of this Court had held that since the petitioner was declared medically fit at the time of acceptance of service by him and as such no other inference can be drawn that he suffered mental illness during the course of his duties when he was in service but having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case coupled with the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of india v. Baljit Singh (vide supra), which is binding on us, we are of the view that these decisions are again of no help to the petitioner.

10.2 Madan Singh Shekhawat (vide supra), which is a Supreme Court decision, undoubtedly holds that the rules being beneficial provision, they are to be interpreted liberally so as to give a wider meaning, but is again of no help to the petitioner in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. The Judgment in Union of india v. Baljit Singh (vide supra) was decided earlier and has not been referred to therein besides this decision is binding on us and cannot be ignored, even though in terms of Cl. 7(b) no medical opinion has been recorded that the disease in question could not have been detected on medical examination prior to occupation of the military service by the petitioner.

11. Accordingly, even we have all sympathy for the writ-petitioner and the substituted petitioners, we do not find any merit and dismiss this writ petition but in the peculiar facts and circumstances we leave the parties to bear their own costs.