P., Ms. Celesty Agarwal, Ms. Kirti Khangarot, Dinesh Bhati and Ms. Archana v. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HEMANT GUPTA, J

Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Sr. Adv., Ms. Chitrangda Rastravara, Nitin P., Ms. Celesty Agarwal, Ms. Kirti Khangarot, Dinesh Bhati and Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Advs. for the Appellant. A B C D E F G H NO. 1466828M EX CFN NARSINGH YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 263 Ms. Madhavi Divan, ASG, Vivek Narayan Sharma, Amit Verma, Ms. Manjula Gupta, A. K. Sharma and Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HEMANT GUPTA, J.

#1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Lucknow1 on September 23, 2011 whereby, the claim of the appellant for grant of disability pension was not accepted.

#2. The appellant was enrolled in the Indian Army on December 2, 2003. The invaliding Medical Board found the appellant to be suffering from Schizophrenia, which disability was assessed at 20% for a period of five years. The opinion of the Board was that disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service and consequently, the appellant was discharged from army service on May 8, 2007. The claim of the appellant for disability pension was rejected departmentally and later by the Tribunal and still aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court.

#3. The appellant was appointed as CFN - Craftsman (Military Rank). In Annexure RP1 which includes the signed Personal Statement of the appellant, he was posted at 3 EME Centre, Bhopal from December 2, 2003 to August 23, 2005 and thereafter at AD Static Workshop from August 24, 2005 till the time, he was produced before the invaliding Medical Board. Both the places of posting of the appellant were the peace stations. In respect of disease, the appellant declared that he was treated, firstly, at INHS, Nivarini Chilka on September 7 and 8, 2006, then, at Command Hospital, Kolkata from September 9, 2006 to December 23, 2006. Thereafter, he was treated at Military Hospital, Allahabad from January 21, 2007 to February 21, 2007 and finally, at Command Hospital, Kolkata from February 23, 2007 till the time, he was examined by the invaliding Medical Board. In Part I of the Personal Statement, the Question asked was to “Give details of any incidents during your service which you think caused or made your disability worse”. The answer given by the appellant was ‘NIL’. In Part II of the Report, the Commanding Officer answered ‘No’ to the question – “Did the Duties involve Severe/exceptional stress and strain?” 1 for short, ‘Tribunal’ A B C D E F G H 264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 13 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H

#4. The summary and opinion of the Specialist in Psychiatry of Command Hospital (Eastern Command), Kolkata dated April 10, 2007 read as under: “Summary Period of Hospitalization: Sec Hospital, Gopalpur INHS Kaiyani, Vizag CH (EC), Kolkata Sick Leave MH Allahabad CH (EC), Kolkata AFMSF-10 dated 07 Sep 06 mentions “punctual, disciplines, dedicated, social drinker, above average competence, cheerful, active and outgoing, retention recommended, developed fever and headache on 06 Sep 06 following which he was noted to be behaving abnormally. 07 Sep 06 to 07 Sep 06 07 Sep 06 to 15 Sep 06 16 Sep 06 to 23 Dec 06 24 Dec 06 to 21 Jan 07 21 Jan 07 to 22 Feb 07 23 Feb 07 onwards till date History of Present Illness: Individual was brought to psychiatric attention in mid Sep at the behest of unit authorities as he was talking irrelevantly, laughing and crying for no apparent reason, in the background of febrile episode. Apparently functioning well until Sep 06 when he was noted to be aloof, lacked interest in his work, not taking self care nor reporting for duty in time. Found to be wandering aimlessly in the unit. Felt that others were planning to harm him; could hear them talking about him. Further when onboard the train to Vizag felt he was being followed and things happening around him was in reference to him. When offered fruits by co-passenger felt it had a special meaning often noted to be taking irrelevantly, crying for his mother who had died about 12 years back. Felt that others came to know what he was thinking. Become violent when others tried to stop him or gave instructions to follow.” “Opinion 21½ years old EME/Veh Mech with nearly 3½ years service, no past or family h/o psychiatric illness. Had a psychotic breakdown of schizophrenic nature in Sep 06 Managed as a case of Schizophrenia F 20 and treated with antipsychotics, ECT and other NO. 1466828M EX CFN NARSINGH YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.] 265 supportive measures. Poor response to treatment. Presently asymptomatic, residual negative features persist. In view of the above, onset of his psychotic breakdown at the start of the career, and persistence of residual negative features, he is unlikely to be a fit soldier for further service. Hence recommend to be invalided from service in category S5 of SHAPE classification as a case of Schizophrenia F20.”

#5. The Medical Board concluded that the disability is neither attributed to army service nor aggravated by military service though it assessed the disability at 20% for five years. Such opinion of the Medical Board dated April 20, 2007 is the basis of the discharge of the appellant. The opinion of the Medical Board is as under: “CERTIFICATE

#1. Certified that the IMB held in respect of No.14666828m CFN NS Yadav of AD State Wk Sp C/o 99 APO to a case of SCHIZOPHRENIA F. 20.0. A B C D

#2. Individual is found fit for civil job. Date: 20 Apr. 2007 Lt. Col. (Rajiv Kamra)” E

#6. The appellant relies upon an order passed by this Court in Ex. Gnr. Laxmanram Poonia (Dead) through Legal Representatives v. Union of India & Ors.2 as also the judgments in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India & Ors.3 and Union of India & Anr. v. Rajbir Singh4to contend that since no note was given at the time of enrolment of the said disease in the Army, therefore, such disability is to be attributed to military service.

#7. In Laxmanram Poonia, there was a positive finding that appellant was overburdened with work due to scarcity of staff and he suffered hypertension resulting in lack of sleep and hunger due to continuous restless duty hours for several days. This Court allowed the appeal of the appellant and granted disability pension.