T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.@mdashThe Petitioner is the widow of Havaldar Nagar Mal, who was enrolled in the Army as Sepoy on 20.6.1979. At the
time of enrollment, the petitioner''s husband was physically and mentally fit. During his service in the Army, he also obtained a degree in law and
also cleared his map reading course. Throughout his career in the Army his service record was good. On 7.2.1989 he was discharged from the
Army on medical ground that he developed disease known as ''Non Organic Psychosis.'' After the discharge from the Army, the petitioner''s
husband made representation to the authorities for the grant of disability pension, but the same was denied to the petitioner''s husband. The
petitioner''s husband died on 2.3.1991 in a railway accident. The petitioner also made a representation for granting disability pension to her
husband, but the same was denied on the ground that the disease of the petitioner''s husband was not attributable to Military service. Therefore, the
petitioner was compelled to approach this Court seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the respondents denying the claim of
the petitioner''s husband for disability pension and also for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release disability pension to her
husband from the date it became payable.
2. The respondents resisted the claim of the petitioner solely on the ground that the disease of the petitioner''s husband was not attributable to
Military Service.
3. There is no dispute of the fact that at the time when the husband of the petitioner was enrolled in the Army, he was medically examined and was
found fit. It was only in the year 1989 the petitioner''s husband was found to be suffering from mental illness. He was admitted in the Army Hospital
for treatment. There is no history that the petitioner''s husband. His word was found to be satisfactory. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
petitioner''s husband was earlier suffering from the mental illness. In fact his service record throughout admittedly was good. He also obtained a
Degree in Law during his service. Further there was no complaint of any nature against the petitioner''s husband. His work was found to be
satisfactory. Therefore it can not be said that the petitioners husband was suffering from mental illness either at the time of joining the service or it is
a constitutional disease. There cannot be any doubt that a person may get frustrated due to strict disciplinary service and afflicted with mental
illness. Psychosis causes major mental problem and it includes manic depression and it will be associated with chemical changes in the brain. If it is
constitutional one, mental deficiency will be diagnosed in the childhood itself, but strain and stress also may cause mental illness. There cannot be
any doubt that such conditions as anxiety and depression will also cause mental illness leading to psychosis. The petitioner''s husband was found fit
when he was enrolled and till 1989 he was a normal person and acquired academic qualification like degree in Law during his career in the Military
and when his work throughout for a period of 10 years was satisfactory, it cannot be said that the disease was constitutional and is not attributable
to the Military Service.
4. On the facts of the case, I am satisfied that the disease ""Psychosis"" suffered by the husband of the petitioner was solely attributable to Military
Service. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to disability pension due to her husband from the date it became payable.
5. Accordingly, I allow the writ petition and direct that respondents to release the disability pension to the petitioner in accordance with the rules
from the date it became due to her husband within three months from the date of receipt of this order positively.
