DHARAMVIR SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

                   [2013] 8 S.C.R. 1119


                   DHARAMVIR SINGH                            A
                             v.
                  UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
              (Civil Appeal No. 4949 of 2013)
                       JULY 2, 2013
                                                              B
         [A.K. PATNAIK AND SUDHANSU JYOTI
                 MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.]

      Armed Forces - Disability pension c... Entitlement to -
Presumption of sound physical and mental condition upon C
entering service in absence of disabilities or disease noted
or recorded at the time of entrance - Appellant, Sepoy in
Indian Army, boarded out of service on ground of 20%
permanent disability as he was found to be suffering from
"Generalised seizure (Epilepsy)" - Medical Board of the Army D
opined that the disability was not related to military service -
Disability pension accordingly not granted to appellant -
Justification - Held: A member of the Armed Forces is
presumed to have been in sound physical and mental
condition upon entering service in absence of disabilities or E
disease noted or recorded at the time of entrance - In the
event of his subsequently being discharged from service on
medical grounds, any deterioration in his health is to be
presumed due to service - In the present case, no note of any
disease was recorded at the time of appellant's acceptance F
for military service - In absence of any evidence on record
to show that the appellant was suffering from "Generalised
seizure (Epilepsy)" at the time of acceptance of his service, it
will be presumed that the appellant was in sound physical and
mental condition at the time of entering the service and G
deterioration in his health took place due to service - Non-
app/ication of mind of Medical Board is apparent from its
opinion - The Pension Sanctioning Authority failed to notice


                           1119                               H
   1120    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2013] 8 S.C.R.


A that the Medical Board did not given any reason in support
  of its opinion and mechanically passed the impugned order
  of rejection based on the report of the Medical Board -
  Appellant entitled to benefit of presumption in his favour and
  thus entitled to disability pension - Entitlement Rules for
B Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982- "· 5, 9 and 14 -Pension
  Regulations for the Army, 1961 - Regulation 173 - Guide to
  Medical (Military Pension), 2002.

      The appellant, a Sepoy in the Corps of Signals of the
  Indian Army, was boarded out of the service on the
C ground of 20% permanent disability as he was found to
  be suffering from "Generalised seizure (Epilepsy)". The
  Medical Board of Army opined that the disability was not
  related to military service; and on the basis of the
  disability report, disability pension was not granted to the
D appellant.

      The appellant filed Writ Petition. A Single Judge of the
  High Court allowed the petition observing that there was
  nothing on record to show that the appellant was
E suffering from any disease at the time of his initial
  recruitment in the Indian Army held that the disease
  would be deemed to be attributable to or aggravated by
  the Army services; and therefore, in terms of Regulation
  173 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, the
F appellant was eligible for disability pension. The order
  passed by the Single Judge was set aside by the Division
  Bench.
       In the instant appeal, the questions which arose for
  consideration were: (i) Whether a member of Armed
G Forces can be presumed to have been in sound physical
  and mental condition upon entering service in absence
  of disabilities or disease noted or recorded at the time of
  entrance; and (ii)Whether the appellant is entitled for
  disability pension.
H
   DHARAMVIR SINGH v. UNION OF !NOIA & ORS.               1121


    Allowing the appeal, the Court                                A

     HELD: 1.1. A conjoint reading of various provisions
makes it clear that: (i) Disability pension is to be granted
to an individual who is invalidated from service on
account of a disability which is attributable to or               8
aggravated by military service in non-battle casualty and
is assessed at 20% or over. The question whether a
disability is attributable or aggravated by military service
to be determined under "Entitlement Rules for Casualty
Pensionary Awards, 1982" of Appendix-II (Regulation 173           C
of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961). (ii) A member
is to be presumed in sound physical and mental
condition upon entering service if there is no note or
record at the time o.f entrance. In the event of his
subsequently being discharged from service on medical
grounds any deterioration in his health is to be presumed         D
due to service. [Rule 5 r/w Rule 14(b)]. (iii) Onus of proof
is not on the claimant (employee), the corollary is that
onus of proof that the condition for non-entitlement is
with the employer. A claimant has a right to derive benefit
of any reasonable doubt and is entitled for pensionary            E
benefit more liberally. (Rule 9). (iv) If a disease is accepted
to have been as having arisen in service, it must also be
established that the conditions of military service
determined or contributed to the onset of the disease and
that the conditions were due to the circumstances of duty         F
in military service. [Rule 14(c)]. (v) If no note of any
disability or disease was made at the time of individual's
acceptance for military service, a disease which has led
to an individual's discharge or death will be deemed to
have arisen in service. [14(b)]. (vi) If medical opinion holds    G
that the disease could not have been detected on medical
examination prior to the acceptance for service and that
disease will not be deemed to have arisen during service,
the Medical Board is required to state the reasons.
[14(b)]; and (vii) It is mandatory for the Medical Board to       H
    1122   SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A follow the guidelines laid down in Chapter-II of the "Guide
  to Medical (Military Pension), 2002 - "Entitlement :
  General Principles", including paragraph 7,8 and 9.
  Accordingly both the questions posed are answered in
  affirmative in favour of the appellant and against the
B respondents. [Paras 28, 29] [1145-C-H; 1146-A-D]

       1.2. In the present case, no note of any disease has
  been recorded at the time of appellant's acceptance for
  military service. The respondents have failed to bring on
  record any document to suggest that the appellant was
C under treatment for such a disease or by hereditary he
  is suffering from such disease. In absence of any note
  in the service record at the time of acceptance of joining
  of appellant, it was incumbent on the part of the Medical
  Board to call for records and look into the same before
D coming to an opinion that the disease could not have
  been detected on medical examination prior to the
  acceptance for military service, but nothing is on the
  record to suggest that any such record was called for by
  the Medical Board or looked into it and no reasons have
E been recorded in writing to come to the conclusion that
  the disability is not due to military service. In fact, non-
  application of mind of Medical Board is apparent from
  Clause {d) of paragraph 2 of the opinion of the Medical
  Board. [Para 30] [1146-E-H]
F
       1.3. Paragraph 1 of 'Chapter II' - "Entitlement :
  General Principles" specifically stipulates that certificate
  of a constituted medical authority vis-a-vis invalidating
  disability, or death, forms the basis of compensation
G payable by the Government, the decision to admit or
  refuse entitlement is not solely a matter which can be
  determined finally by the medical authorities alone. It may
  require also the consideration of other circumstances e.g.
  service conditions, pre-and post-service history,
  verification of wound or injury, corroboration of
H
   DHARAMVIR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.            1123


statements, collecting and weighing the value of               A
evidence, and in some instances, matters of military law
and dispute. For the said reasons the Medical Board was
required to examine the cases in the light of etiology of
the particular disease and after considering all the
relevant particulars of a case, it was required to record      B
its conclusion with reasons in support, in clear terms and
language which the Pension Sanctioning Authority would
be able to appreciate. [Para 31) [1147-C-F]
     1.4. The Pension Sanctioning Authority failed to
       .
notice that the Medical Board had not given any reason
in support of its opinion, particularly when there is no
                                                               C

note of such disease or disability available in the service
record of the appellant at the time of acceptance for
military serviCe. Without going through the aforesaid
facts, the Pension Sanctioning Authority mechanically          D
passed the impugned order of rejection based on the
report of the Medical Board. As per Rules 5 and 9 of
'Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards,
1982', the appellant is entitled for presumption and benefit
of presumption Jn his favour. In absence of any evidence       E
on record to sh~w that the appellant was suffering from
"Generalised s.eizure (Epilepsy)" at the time of
acceptance of his service, it will be presumed that the
appellant was in s_ound physical and mental condition at
the time of entering the service and deterioration in his      F
health has taken place due to service. [Para 32) [1147-F-
H; 1148-A-B]
     1.5. As per Rule 423(a) of the General Rules of Guide
to Medical Officers (Military Pensions), 2002, for the
purpose of determining a question whether the cause of         G
a disability or death resulting from disease is or is not
attributable to service, itJs immaterial whether the cause
giving rise to the disability or death occurred in an area
declared to be a field service/active service area or under
normal peace conditions. "Classification of diseases"          H
    1124   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A have been prescribed at Chapter IV of Annexure I; under
  paragraph 4 post traumatic epilepsy and other mental
  changes resulting from head injuries have been shown
  as one of the diseases affected by training, marching,
  prolonged standing etc. Therefore, the presumption
B would be that the disability of the appellant bore a casual
  connection with the service conditions. The respondents
  are directed to pay the appellant the benefit in terms of
  the order passed by the Single Judge in accordance with
  law. [Paras 33, 34) [1148-C-E, F-G]
c        Om Prakash Singh vs. Union of India and others (2010)
    12 sec 667; 2010 (8) scR 490; (2009) 9 sec 140: 2009
    (13) SCR 416; (2010) 11 sec 220: 2010 (7) SCR 506 -
    distinguished.

D      Union of India and others vs. Keshar Singh (2007) 12
    sec 675: 2007 (5) SCR 408 - referred to.
                        Case Law Reference:
        2007 (5) SCR 408          referred to         Para 6
E
        2010 (8) SCR 490          distinguished       Para 27
        2009 (13) SCR 416         distinguished       Para 27
        2010 (7) SCR 506          distinguished       Para 27
F       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    4949 of 2013.
        From the Judgment and Order dated 31.07.2009 of the
    High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in LPA No. 26 of
G 2004.
        S.K. Bhattacharya, Babita Sant, Malini Poduval, Anil
    Katiyar, B. Krishna Prasad, R. Balasubramanium, R.K.
    Rathore, Sadhana Sandhu, Abhinav Mukherjee, B.V.
    Balaramdas for the appearing parties.
H
   DHARAMVIR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                  1125


     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                       A

    SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. Leave
granted.

     2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against
the judgment dated 31st July, 2009 in LPA No.26 of 2004               B
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachanl
 Pradesh, Shimla whereby the Division Bench allowed the
appeal preferred by the Union of India and set aside the
judgment dated 20th May, 2004 passed by the learned Single
Judge in Civil Writ Petition No.660 of 2004.                          C

     3. The questions involved in this case are:

      (i)    Whether a member of Armed Forces can be
             presumed to have been in sound physical and
             mental condition upon entering service in absence        D
             of disabilities or disease noted or recorded at the
             time of entrance.

      (ii)   Whether the appellant is entitled for disability
             pension.                                                 E
     4. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:

      The appellant was enrolled as Sepoy in the Corps of
Signals of the Indian Army on 15th June, 1985. Having rendered
about 9 years of service in Indian Army he was boarded out of         F
the service with effect from 1st April, 1994 on the ground of 20%
permanent disability as he was found suffering from
"Genrealised seizure (Epilepsy)". The Medical Board of Army
opined that the "disability is not related to military service". On
the basis of disability report, no disability pension was granted     G
to him and when the appellant preferred representation the
respondents rejected such prayer by an order dated 12th
December, 1995 on the ground that the disability suffered by
the appellant was neither attributable to nor aggravated by the
military service.                                                     H
    1126    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A      5. The appellant approached the High Court of Himachal
  Pradesh in Civil Writ Petition No.660 of 2004 seeking a
  direction to respondents to grant disability pension with effect
  from 1st April, 1994. Learned Single Judge by judgment dated
  20th May, 2004 on observing that there was nothing on record
B to show that the appellant was suffering from any disease at
  the time of his initial recruitment in the Indian Army held that
  the disease would be deemed to be attributable to or
  aggravated by the Army services. Therefore, in terms of
  Regulation 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 the
C appellant is eligible for disability pension. Learned Single
  Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents
  to grant disability pension to the appellant as per rules with
  effect from the date he was invalidated out of service and to
  pay the entire arrears of pension within three months else they
  shall be liable to pay interest on such arrears at the rate of 9%
D perannum.

       6. The Union of India challenged the decision of the
  learned Single Judge before the Division Bench of the High
  Court of Himachal Pradesh in LPA No.26 of 2004. On behalf
E of the Union of India it was contended that disease"generalized
  seizure" was constitutional in nature and the same has not been
  found by the Re-Survey Medical Board attributable or
  aggravated by military service. It was also contended that the
  learned Single Judge had not taken into consideration the
F relevant law while allowing the petition. The Division Bench
  referring to a judgment of this Court in Union of India and others
  vs. Keshar Singh, (2007) 12 SCC 675, and Rule 7 as noticed
  in the said judgment held as follows and set aside the order
  passed by the learned Single Judge:
G       "The respondent was discharged from the military after
        being placed in Low Medical Category (GEE). The Re-
        survey Medical Board had opined the disability of the
        respondent neither attributable nor aggravated military
        service. He was found suffering from 'generalised seizure'.
H
DHARAMVIR SINGH v. UNION. OF INDIA & ORS.            1127
  [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA. J.]

The learned Single Judge has purportedly referred to          A
paragraph 7(b) of Appendix-/las referred to in Regulation
48, 173 and 185 while coming to the ·conclusion that the
respondent was not suffering from the disease on account
of which he was invalidated out of the service at the time
of his initial recruitment in the Indian Army. However, the   B
learned Single Judge has omitted to take note of
paragraph 7(c) of Appendix-/1 as referred to in Regulation
48, 173 and 185 of the Pension Regulations for the
Army, 1961 (Part-I).

The legal position raised in this Letters Patent Appeal is
                                                              c
no more res integra in view of law laid down by their
Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of
India & Ors. Versus Keshar Singh, 2007 (4) SLR 100.
Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court were also
seized of the matter wherein the Medical Board had given      D
a clear opinion that the illness was not attributable to
military service. In this case also the soldier has
developed schizophrenia. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court have held as under:
                                                              E
      "In support of the appeal learned Additional
      Solicitor General submitted that both learned
      Single Judge and the Division Bench have lost
      sight of para 7(c). Both 7(b) and 7(c) have to
      be read together. They read as follows:                 F

      "7(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 service. However,
      if medical opinion holds for reasons to be              G
      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.
                                                              H
    1128   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2013] 8 S.C.R.


A             7(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 to the onset of the disease and
              that the conditions were due to the
B             circumstances of duty in military service."

       A bare reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear
       that ordinarily if a disease has led to the discharge of
       individual it shall ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in
       service if no note of it was made at the time of individual's
c      acceptance for military service. An exception, however,
       is carvd out, i.e. if medical opinion holds for reasons to
       be stated that the disease could not have been detected
       by Medical Examination Board prior to acceptance .for,
       service, the disease would not be deemed to have arisen
D      during service. Similarly, clause (c) of Rule 7 makes the
       position clear that if a disease is accepted as having
       arisen in service it must also be established that the-
       condition of military service determined or contributed {cf
       the onset of the disease and that the conditions are due
E      to the circumstances of duty in military service. Thei-e is
       no material placed by the respondent in this regard.

        In view of the legal position referred to above and the fact
        that the Medical Board's opinion was clearly to the effect
F       that the illness suffered by the respondent was not
        attributable to the military service, both the learned
        Single Judge and the Division Bench were not justified
        in their respective conclusion. The respondent is not
        entitled to disability pension. However, on the facts and
        circumstances of the case, payment already made to the
G
        respondent by way of disability pension shall not be
        recovered from him. The appeal is allowed but in the
      . circumstances without any order as to costs. n

       The disease developed by the petitioner i.e. 'generalised
H      seizore' is constitutional in nature and the Re-survey
   DHARAMVIR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                   1129
     [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
     Medical Board had specifically opined, as noticed above,         A
     that the disability was neither attributable nor aggravated
     by the military service. The opinion of the Re-survey
     Medical Board has to be given primacy.

     Accordingly, the learned Single Judge has erred in law
     by allowing the writ petition only on the basis of plain
                                                                      8
     reading of paragraph 7(b) of Appendix-Jlas referred to in
     Regulation 48, 173 and 185 of the Pension Regulation
     for the Army, 1961 (Part-I). He has omitted to see clauses
     7(c) of Appendix-I/of the Pension Regulations for the
     Army, 1961 (Pat-I).                                              C

      Consequently, in view of the observation made
     hereinabove, the Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. The
     judgment of learned Single Judge is set aside. No costs."
                                                                      D
     7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 have
been made effective w.e. f. 1st January, 1982 ·and the set of rules
is required to be read in conjunction with the Guide to Medical
Officers (Military Pension), 1980. Referring to Rule 423(c) it was
submitted that the cause of disability or death resulting from a
                                                                      E
disease will be regarded as attributable to service when it is
established that the disease arose during service and .the
conditions and circumstances of duty in the Armed Forces
determined and contributed to the onset of the disease. A
disease which has led to an individual's discharge or death will      F
ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service if no note of it
was made at the time of individual's acceptance for service in
the Armed Forces. 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               G
service, the disease will not be deemed to have arisen during
service.

      8. Reliance was placed on Rules 5,6,9 and 14 to show
that the appellant was entitled to the benefit and the respondents    H
    1130    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A ought to have given the same in consideration of the said rules.
  It was further contended that it will be for the service authorities
  to make all practical investigation to establish the alleged fact,
  calling upon the claimant, if necessary to assist and to show
  that the employee was suffering from disability or disease at
B the time of appointment and such disease is not attributable
  to or aggravated by service.

         9. Per contra, according to the respondents, the question
    is no more res integra having settled by this Court in Keshar
    Singh (supra).
c
        10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of
  India submitted that in each case when disability pension is
  sought for and claim is made it must be affirmatively established
  as a matter of fact as to whether the disease is due to military
D service or that it was aggravated by military service which
  contributed to invalidation from service. According to him, in the
  present case, the Medical Board has clearly opined that the
  invalidating disease'left partial motor seizure with secondary
  generalisation' is not related to military service. The Medical
E Board having examined the appellant and having taken into
  consideration all evidence before it once submitted its opinion,
  it is binding on the parties. It was contended that the opinion
  of the Board has been given by the medical experts approved
  by a superior Medical Officer, Brigadier. Unless the primary
F condition in Regulation 173 is satisfied the appellant cannot
  derive advantage. He also placed reliance on Rules 6,8 14(c)
  and 17 of "Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards,
  1982" and referred to decisions of this Court to suggest that
  the appellant is not entitled to disability pension in view of the
  opinion of the Medical Board comprised of experts in the field.
G
        11. In the impugned judgment dated 31st July, 2009, the
  Division Bench of the High Court placed reliance on Rules 7(a),
  7(b) and 7(c) which was noticed by this Court in Keshar Singh
  (supra). In Keshar Singh(supra), a judgment of the Division
H
  DHARAMVIR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                1131
    [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]

Bench of the Allahabad High Court granting disability pension     A
was challenged before this Court. In the said matter paragraph
7(b) of Appendix-II referred to in Regulations 48, 173 and 185
of the 'Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961'. In support of
the appeal before this Court in Keshar Singh(supra) learned
Additional Solicitor General contended that the Division Bench    B
of the High Court has lost sight of Para 7(c) and both the
paragraphs 7(b) and 7(c) have to be read together. The relevant
portion of the judgment of this Court in Keshar Singh (supra)
is quoted hereunder:

    "2. Background facts giving rise to the present dispute is
                                                                  c
    as follows:

     The respondent was enrolled as Rifleman on 15.11.1976
     and was discharged from Army on 18. 10. 1986. It was
     found that he was suffering from Schizophrenia and the D
     Medical Board's report indicated his non-suitability for
    continuance in army. Medical Board opined that the
    disability did not exist before entering service and it was
    not connected with service. An appeal was preferred
    before prescribed appellate authority which was E
    dismissed on 16.4.1989. Respondent filed a writ petition
    which was allowed by learned Single Judge and as noted
    above by the impugned judgment the special appeal was
    dismissed. Both learned Single Judge and the Division
    Bench held that it was not mentioned at the time of F
    entering to army service that the respondent suffered from
    Schizophrenia and therefore it was attributable to army
    service. Both learned Single Judge and the Division
    Bench referred to para 7(b) of the Appendix II referred to
    in Regulations 48, 173 and 185 of the Pension G
    Regulations, 1961 to hold that if any disease has led to
    the individuals discharge it shall be ordinarily deemed
    to have arisen in the service if no note of it was made at
    the time of individual's acceptance for military service.
    Accordingly, it was held that the respondent was entitled H
    1132    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A       to disability pension.

        3. In support of the appeal learned Additional Solicitor
        General submitted that both learned Single Judge and
        the Division Bench have lost sight of para 7(c). Both 7(b)
        and 7(c) have to be read together. They read as follows"
B
        "7 (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,
c       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.

D       7(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 to the onset of the
        disease and that the conditions were due to the
        circumstances of duty in military service.""

E      12. In their counter-affidavit filed by the respondents before
  this Court in the present case, it is accepted that old Rules 7(a),
  (b) and 7(c) of the erstwhile Rules/Regulations were taken into
  consideration by this Court in Keshar Singh (supra) which has
  since been revised by Rule 14 of revised 'Entitlement Rules for
F Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982'. For the said reason, we
  are not relying on or referring to Rule 7(b) and 7(c) of the
  erstwhile Rules. According to the respondents, Rule 14(a),
  14(b), 14(c) and 14(d) of the "Entitlement Rules for Casualty
  Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 1982" as
G amended vide Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter
  No.1 (1 )/81/D(Pen-C) dated 20th June, 1996 needs to be taken
  into consideration along with the other provisions of Entitlement
  Rules, 1982.

        13. Per contra, according to the learned counsel for the
H
   DHARAMVIR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                  1133
     [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]

appellant, the "Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary            A
Awards, 1982" contained in Appendix-II of the Pension
Regulations for the Army, 1961 is applicable and not the Rules
referred to and quoted in the counter-affidavit by the
respondents.
                                                                     B
      14. There being difference in the two sets of the
 Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards referred to
 by the counsel for the respondents and the appellant, on the
direction of the Court photostat copy of the 'Pension
 Regulations for the Army, 1961(Part-I)' along with Appendix (ii),   C
 (referred to in Regulations 1948, 1973 and 1985), 'Guide to
 Medical Officers (Military Pensions) 2002' published by the
Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi has been
produced. We also called for the Pension Regulations for the
Army, 1961 from Library which contains Appendix-11-
'Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982' for         D
our perusal, and we find that it is similar to the photostat copy
of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-I) published
by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi. The
respondents in their counter-affidavit has not made clear as to
when the Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter             E
No.1 (1 )/81 /D(Pen-C) dated 20th June, 1996 was notified in
Gazette amending the Rules and why no such amendment has
been shown in the published Entitlement Rules for Casualty
Pensionary Awards, 1982. In their counter-affidavit they have
not mentioned that the rules extracted in their counter-affidavit    F
is true copy of its original.

     15. For the said reason, we will rely on the "Pension
Regulations for the Army, 1961" and Appendix-II- 'Entitlement
Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982' published by the         G
Government of India, we will also discuss the Rules 14(a), 14(b),
14 (c) and 14(d) as quoted and relied on by the respondents.

    16. Regulation 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army,
1961 relates to the primary conditions for the grant of disability
pension and reads as follows:                                        H
     1134     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 8 S C.R


A·      "Regulation 173. Unless otherwise specifically provided
        a disability pension consisting of service element and
        disability element may be granted to an individual who is
        invalidated out of service on account of a disability which
        is attributable to or aggravated by military service in non-
B       battle casualty and is assessed 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."

C      17. From a bare perusal of the Regulation aforesaid, it is
  clear that disability pension in normal course is to be granted
  to an individual (i) who is invalidated out of service on account
  of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military
  service and (ii) who is assessed at 20% or over disability
D unless otherwise it is specifically provided.

       18. A disability is 'attributable to or aggravated by military
  service' to be determined under the "Entitlement Rules for
  Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982', as shown in Appendix-II.
E Rule 5 relates to approach to the Entitlement Rules for Casualty
  Pensionary Awards, 1982 based on presumption as shown
  hereunder:

        "Rule5 . The approach to the question of entitlement to
        casualty pensionary awards and evaluation of disabilities
F       shall be based on the following presumptions:

        PRIOR TO AND DURING SERVICE

            (a)   member is presumed to have been in sound
                  physical and mental condition upon entering
G                 except as to physical disabilities noted or
                  recorded at the time of entrance.

            (b)   In the event of his subsequently being discharged
                  from service on medical grounds any deterioration
H                 in his health which has taken place is due to
   DHARAMVIR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                1135
     [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]

            service."                                              A

     From Rule 5 we find that a general presumption is to be
drawn that a member is presumed to have been in sound
physical and mental condition upon entering service except as
to physical disabilities noted or recorded at the time of          8
entrance. If a person is discharged from service on medical
ground for deterioration in his health it is to be presumed that
the deterioration in the health has taken place due to service.

    19. "Onus of proof' is not on claimant as apparent from
Rule 9, which reads as follows:                                    C

    "Rule 9. ONUS OF PROOF- The claimant shall not be
    called upon to prove the conditions of entitlements. He!
    she will receive the benefit of any reasonable doubt. This
    benefit will be given more liberally to the claimants in       D
    field/afloat service cases."

     From a bare perusal of Rule 9 it is clear that a member,
who is declared disabled from service, is not required to prove
his entitlement of pension and such pensionary benefits to be
given more liberally to the claimants.                             E

    20. With respect to disability due to diseases Rule 14 shall
be applicable which as per the Government of India publication
reads as follows:
                                                                   F
    "Rule 14. DISEASE- In respect of diseases, the following
    rule 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 G
            subsequent courses 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        H
    1136     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013) 8 S.C.R.


A                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
B                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
c                conditions of military service determined or
                 contributed to the onset of the disease and that the
                 conditions were due to the circumstances of duty
                 in military service.·

D        As per clause (b) of Rule 14 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.

E        As per clause(c) of Rule 14 if a disease is accepted as
    having arisen in service, it must also be established that the
    conditions of military service determined or contributed to the
    onset of the disease and that the conditions were due to the
    circumstances of duty in military service.

F      21. If we notice Rule 14(a). 14(b), 14(c) and 14(d) as
  quoted by the respondents in their counter-affidavit, it makes
  no much difference for determination of issue. According to the
  respondents, Rule 14(a), 14(b), 14(c) and 14(d) as amended
  vide Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter No. 1(1 )/81/
G D(Pen-C) dated 20th June, 1996 reads as follows:

        "Rule 14(a)- For acceptance of a disease as attributable
        to military service, the following two conditions must be
        satisfied simultaneously:
H
   DHARAMVIR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                 1137
     (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]

      (i)   That the disease has arisen during the period of        A
            military service, and

      (ii) That the disease has been caused by the conditions
             of employment in military service.

     Rule 14(b)- If medical authority holds, for reasons to be B
     stated, that the disease although present at the time of
     enrolment could not have been detected on medical
     examination prior to acceptance for service, the disease,
     will not be deemed to have arisen during service. In case
     where it is established that the military service did not C
     contribute to the onset or adversely affect the course
     disease, entitlement for casualty pensionary award will not
     be conceded even if the disease has arisen during
     service.
                                                                    D
     Rule 14(c)- 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.
                                                                    E
    Rule 14(d)- In case of congenital, hereditary,
    degenerative and constitutional diseases which are
    detected after the individual has joined service,
    entitlement to disability pension shall not be conceded
    unless it is clearly established that the course of such        F
    disease was adversely affected due to factors related to
    conditions of military services."

    . 22. As per Rule 14(a) we notice that for acceptance of a
disease as attributable to military service, conditions are to be   G
satisfied that the disease has been arisen during the military
service, and caused by the conditions of employment in military
service which is similar to Rule 14(c) of the printed version as
relied on by the appellant. Rule 14(b) cited by the respondents
is also similar to published Rule 14.
                                                                    H
    1138     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2013] 8 S.C.R


A        Rule 14(c) cited by the respondents relates to the 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        Rule 14(d) cited by the respondents relates to diseases
    which are detected after the individual has joined the service,
    which entails disability pension but it is to be established that
    the course of such disease was adversely affected due to
    factors related to conditions of military service.
c
       23. If the amended version of Rule 14 as cited by the
  respondents is accepted to be the Rule applicable in the
  present case, even then the onus of proof shall lie on the
  employer-respondents in terms of Rule 9 and not the claimant
D and in case of any reasonable doubt the benefit will go more
  liberally to the claimants.

       24. The Rules to be followed by Medical Board in disposal
  of special cases have been shown under Chapter VIII of
  the"General Rules of Guide to Medical Officers (Military
E Pensions) 2002. Rule 423 deals with "Attributability to service"
  relevant of which reads as follows:

        "423(a)For the purpose of determining whether the cause
        of a disability or death resulting from disease is or is not
F       attributable to service, it is immaterial whether the cause
        giving rise to the disability or death occurred in an area
        declared to be a FieldService/Active Service area or under
        normal peace conditions. It is however, essential to
        establish whether the disability or death bore a casual
G       connection with the service conditions. All evidence both
        direct and circumstantial will be taken into account and
        benefit of reasonable doubt, if any, will be given to the
        individual. The evidence to be accepted as reasonable
        doubt for the purpose of these instructions should be 9f a
H
DHARAMVIR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                  1139
  [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]

 degree of cogency, which though not reaching certainty,          A
 nevertheless carries a high degree of probability. In this
 connection, it will be remembered that proof beyond
 reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond a shadow
 of doubt. If the evidence is so strong against an individual
 as to leave only a remote possibility in his/her favour, which   B
 can be dismissed with the sentence "of course it is
 possible but not in the least probable" the case is proved
 beyond reasonable doubt. If on the other hand, the
 evidence be so evenly balanced as to render impracticable
 a determinate conclusion one way or the other, then the          c
 case would be one in which the benefit of the doubt could
 be given more liberally to the individual, in cases occurring
 in Field Service/Active Service areas.

  (c). The cause of a disability or death resulting from a
                                                                  D
  disease will be regarded as attributable to Service when
  it is established that the disease arose during Service
· and the conditions and circumstances of duty in the
  Armed Forces determined and contributed to the onset
  of the disease. Cases, in which it is established that
  Service conditions did not determine or contribute to the       E
  onset of the disease but influenced the subsequent
  course of the disease, will be regarded as aggravated by
  the service. 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      F
  the individual's acceptance for Service in the Armed
  Forces. However, if medical opinion holds, for reasons
  tobe 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            G
  service.

 (d). The question, whether a disability or death resulting
 from disease is attributable to or aggravated by service
                                                                  H
    1140    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A       or not, will be decided as regards its medical aspects by
        a Medical Board or by the medical officer who signs t~e
        Death Cerlificate. The Medical Board/Medical Officer will
        specify reasons for their/his opinion. The opinion of the
        Medical Board/Medical Officers,in so far as it relates to
B       the actual cause of the disability or death and the
        circumstances in which it originated will be regarded as
        final. The question whether the cause and the attendant
        circumstances can be accepted as attributable to!
        aggravated by service for the purpose of pef;!sionary
        benefits will, however, be decided by the pension
c       sanctioning authority. n

         25. Therefore, as per Rule 423 following procedures t<N>e
    followed by the Medical Board:

D       (i) Evidence both direct and circumstantial to be taken into
        account by the Board and benefit of reasonable doubt, if
        any would go to the individual;

        ,(ii) a disease which has led to an individual's discharge
         or death will ordinarily be treated to have been arisen in
E        service, if no note of it was made at the time of individual's
         acceptance for service in Armed Forces.

        (iii) If the medical opinion holds that the disease could not
        have been detected on medical examination prior to
F       acceptance for service and the disease will not be
        deemed to have been arisen during military service the
        Board is required to state the reason for the same.

       26. 'Chapter ll'of the Guide to Medical Officers (Military
G Pensions) 2002 relates to "Entitlement : General Principles".
  In the opening paragraph 1, it is made clear that the Medical
  Board should examine cases in the light of the etiology of the
  particular disease and after considering all the relevant
  particulars of a case, record their conclusions with reasons in
H support, in clear terms and in a language which the Pension
   DHARAMVIR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                  1141
     [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]

Sanctioning Authority would be able to appreciate fully in           A
determining the question of entitlement according to the rules.
Medical officers should comment on the evidence both for and
against the concession of entitlement; the aforesaid paragraph
reads as follows:
                                                                     B
     "1. Although the certificate of a properly constituted
    medical authority vis-a-vis the invaliding disability, or
    death, forms the basis of compensation payable by the
    government, the decision to admit or refuse entitlement
    is not solely a matter which can be determined finally by
    the medical authorities alone. It may require also the           C
    consideration of other circumstances e.g. service
    conditions, pre-and post-service history, verification of
    wound or injury, corroboration of statements, collecting
    and weighing the value of evidence, and in some
    instances, matters of military law and discipline.               D
    Accordingly, Medical Boards should examine cases in
    the light of the etiology of the particular disease and after
    considering all the relevant particulars of a case, record
    their conclusions with reasons in support, in clear terms
    and in a language which the Pension Sanctioning                  E
    Authority, a lay body, would be able to appreciate fully
    in determining the question of entitlement according to
    the rules. In expressing their opinion Medical Officers
    should comment on the evidence both for and against
    the concession of entitlement. In this connection, it is as      F
    well to remember that a bare medical opinion without
    reasons in support will be of no value to the Pension
    Sanctioning Authority."

     Paragraph 6 suggests the procedure to be followed by
                                                                     G
service authorities if there is no note, or adequate note, in the
service records on which the claim is based.

     Paragraph 7 talks of evidentiary value attached to the
record of a member's condition at the commencement of
service, .e.g. pre-enrolment history of an injury, or disease like   H
    1142    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A epilepsy, mental disorder etc. Further, guidelines have been
  laid down at paragraphs 8 and 9, as quoted below:

       7.     Evidentiary value is attached to the record of a
       member's condition at the commencement of service,
       and such record has, therefore, to be accepted unless
B
       any different conclusion has been reached due to the
       inaccuracy of the record in a particular case or otherwise.
       Accordingly, if the disease leading to member's
       invalidation out of service or death while in service, was
       not noted in a medical report at the commencement of
c      service, the inference would be that the disease arose
       during the period of member's military service. It may be
       that the inaccuracy or incompleteness of service record
       on entry in service was due to a non-disclosure of the
       essential facts by the member, e.g., pre-enrolment history
D      of an injury or disease like epilepsy, mental disorder etc.
       It may also be that owing to latency or obscurity of the
       symptoms, a disability escaped detection on enrolment.
       Such lack of recognition may affect the medical
       categorization of the member on enrolment and/or cause
E      him to perform duties harmful to his condition. Again,
       there may occasionally be direct evidence of the
       contraction of a disability, otherwise than by service. In
       all such cases, though the disease cannot be considered
       to have been caused by service, the question of
F      aggravation by subsequent service concfitions will need
       examination.

             The following are some of the diseases which
       ordinarily escape detection on enrolment:-
G             (a)Certain congenital abnormalities which are latent
              and only discoverable on full investigations, e.g.
              CONGENITAL DEFECT OF SPINE, SPINA
              BIFIDA, SACRALIZATION,

H             (b)Certain familial and hereditary diseases, e.g.,
DHARAMVIR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.              1143
  [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]

       HAEMOPHILIA, CONGENTIAL                SYPHILIS,      A
       HAEMOGIOBINOPATHY.

       (C)Certain diseases of the heart and blood
       vessels, e.g., CORONORY ATHEROSCLEROSIS,
       RHEUMATIC FEVER.                                      B

       (d)Diseases which may be undetectable by
       physical examination on enrolment, unless
       adequate history is given at the time by the
       member, e.g., GASTRIC AND DUODENAL
       ULCERS, EPILEPSY, MENTAL DISORDERS, HIV               C
       INFECTIONS.

       (e) Relapsing forms of mental disorders which have
       intervals of normality.
                                                             D
       (f) Diseases which have periodic attacks e.g.,
       BRONCHIAL ASTHMA, EPILEPSY, CSOM
       ETC.

8.    The question whether the invalidation or death of
a member has resulted from service conditions, has to        E
be judged in the light of the record of the member's
condition on enrolment as noted in service documents
and of all other available evidence both direct and
indirect.
                                                             F
      In addition to any documentary evidence relative
to the member's condition to entering the service and
during service, the member must carefully and closely
questioned on the circumstances which Jed to the advent
of his disease, the duration, the family history, his pre-   G
service history, etc. so that all evidence in support or
against the claim is elucidated. Presidents of Medical
Boards should make this their personal responsibility and
ensure that opinions on attributability, aggravation or
otherwise are supported by cogent reasons; the approving
                                                             H
    1144   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A      authority should also be satisfied that this question has
       been death with in such a way as to leave no reasonable
       doubt.

               9. On the question whether any persisting
8       deterioration has occurred, it is to be remembered that
        invalidation from seNice does not necessarily imply that
        the member's health has deteriorated during seNice. The
        disability may have been discovered soon after joining
        and the member discharged in his own interest in order
        to prevent deterioration. In such cases, there may even
c       have been a temporary worsening during seNice, but if
        the treatment given before discharge was on grounds of
        expediency to prevent a recurrence, no lasting damage
        was inflicted by seNice and there would be no ground for
        admitting entitlement. Again a member may have been
D       invalided from seNice because he is found so weak
        mentally that it is impossible to make him an efficient
        soldier. This would not mean that his condition has
        worsened during seNice, but only that it is worse than was
        realized on enrolment in the army. To sum up, in each
E       case the question whether any persisting deterioration on
        the available evidence which. will vary according to the
        type of the disability, the consensus of medical opinion
        relating to the particular condition and the clinical history."

F       27. Learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India
  relied on decisions of this Court in Om Prakash Singh vs.
  Union of India and others,(2010) 12 SCC 667;(2009) 9 SCC
  140; (2010) 11 SCC 220, etc. and submitted that this Court
  has already considered the effect of Rule 5, 14a and 14(a) and
G 14(b) and held that the same cannot be read in isolation. After
  perusal of the aforesaid decision we find that Rule 14(a), 14(b)
  and 14(c) as noticed and quoted therein are similar to R1:1le 14
  as published by the Government of India and not Rule 14 as
  quoted by the respondents in their counter-affidavit. Further, we
H find that the question as raised in the present case that in case
  no note of disease or disability was made at the time of
   DHARAMVIR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                  1145
     [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]

individual's acceptance for military service, the Medical Board      A
is required to give reasons in writing for coming to the finding
that the disease could not have been detected on a medical
examination prior to the acceptance for service was neither
raised nor answered by this Court in those cases. Those were
the cases which were decided on the facts of the individual case
                                                                     8
based on the opinion of the Medical Board.

    28. A conjoint reading of various provisions, reproduced
above, makes it clear that:

      (i) Disability pension to be granted to an individual who is   c
invalidated from service on account of a disability which is
attributable to or aggravated by military service in non-battle
casualty and is assessed at 20% or over. The question whether
a disability is attributable or aggravated by military service to
be determined under "Entitlement Rules for Casualty                  D
Pensionary Awards, 1982" of Appendix-II (Regulation 173).

     (ii) A member is to be presumed in sound physical and
mental condition upon entering service if there is no note or
record at the time of entrance. In the event of his subsequently
being discharged from service on medical grounds any                 E
deterioration in his health is to be presumed due to service.
[Rule 5 r/w Rule 14(b)].

      (iii) Onus of proof is not on the claimant (employee), the
corollary is that onus of proof that the condition for non-          F
entitlement is with the employer. A claimant has a right to derive
benefit of any reasonable doubt and is entitled for pensionary
benefit more liberally. (Rule 9).

      (iv) If a disease is accepted to have been as having arisen
in service, it must also be established that the conditions of       G
military service determined or contributed to the onset of the
disease and that the conditions were due to the circumstances
of duty in military service. [Rule 14(c)].

                                                                     H
    1146    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 8 S C.R.


A        (v) If no note of any disability or disease was made at the
    time of individual's acceptance for military service, a disease
    which has led to an individual's discharge or death will be
    deemed to have arisen in service. [14(b)].

         (vi) If medical opinion holds that the disease could not have
B   been detected on medical examination prior to the acceptance
    for service and that disease will not be deemed to have arisen
    during service, the Medical Board is required to state the
    reasons. [14(b)]; and

c         (vii) It is mandatory for the Medical Board to follow the
    guidelines laid down in Chapter-II of the "Guide to Medical
    (Military Pension), 2002 - "Entitledment: General Principles",
    including paragraph 7,8 and 9 as referred to above.

         29. We, accordingly, answer both the questions in
D   affirmative in favour of the appellant and against the
    respondents.

       30. In the present case it is undisputed that no note of any
  disease has been recorded at the time of appellant's
E acceptance for military service. The respondents have failed
  to bring on record any document to suggest that the appellant
  was under treatment for such a disease or by hereditary he is
  suffering from such disease. In absence of any note in the
  service record at the time of acceptance of joining of appellant
F it was incumbent on the part of the Medical Board to call for
  records and look into the same before coming to an opinion
  that the disease could not have been detected on medical
  examination prior to the acceptance for military service, but
  nothing is on the record to suggest that any such record was
G called for by the Medical Board or looked into it and no reasons
  have been recorded in writing to come to the conclusion that
  the disability is not due to military service. In fact, non-
  application of mind of Medical Board is apparent from Clause
  (d) of paragraph 2 of the opinion of the Medical Board, which
H is as follows:
    DHARAMVIR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                    1147
      [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
                                                                         A

         " (d) In the case of a disability under C the board
                          should state

       what exactly in their opinion is the cause thereof. YES
                                                                         B
              Disability is not related to mil service"


       31. Paragraph 1 of 'Chapter II' - "Entitlement : General
 Principles" specifically stipulates that certificate of a constituted   c
 medical authority vis-DEvis invalidating disability, or death,
 forms the basis of compensation payable by the Government,
 the decision to admit or refuse entitlement is not solely a matter
 which can be determined finally by the medical authorities alone.
 It may require also the consideration of other circumstances
                                                                         D
 e.g. service conditions, pre-and post-service history,
 verification of wound or injury, corroboration of statements,
 collecting and weighing the value of evidence, and in some
 instances, matters of military law and dispute. For the said
 reasons the Medical Board was required to examine the cases
                                                                         E
 in the light of etiology of the particular disease and after
 considering all the relevant particulars of a case, it was required
 to record its conclusion with reasons in support, in clear terms
 and language which the Pension Sanctioning Authority would
 be able to appreciate.
                                                                         F
       32. In spite of the aforesaid provisions, the Pension
  Sanctioning Authority failed to notice that the Medical Board
  had not given any reason in support of its opinion, particularly
  when there is no note of such disease or disability available in
  the service record of the appellant at the time of acceptance          G
  for military service. Without going through the aforesaid facts
  the Pension Sanctioning Authority mechanically passed the
  impugned order of rejection based on the report of the Medical
- Board. As per Rules 5 and 9 of 'Entitlement Rules for Casualty
  Pensionary Awards, 1982', the appellant is entitled for                H
    1148    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A presumption and benefit of presumption in his favour. In
  absence of any evidence on record to show that the appellant
  was suffering from "Genrealised seizure (Epilepsy)" at the time
  of acceptance of his service, it will be presumed that the
  appellant was in sound physical and mental condition at the
B time of entering the service and deterioration in his health has
  taken place due to service.

        33. As per Rule 423(a) of General Rules for the purpose
  of determining a question whether the cause of a disability or
  death resulting from disease is or is not attributable to service,
C it is immaterial whether the cause giving rise to the disability
  or death occurred in an area declared to be a field service/
  active service area or under normal peace conditions.
  "Classification of diseases" have been prescribed at Chapter
  IV of Annexure I; under paragraph 4 post traumatic epilepsy and
D other mental changes resulting from head injuries have been
  shown as one of the diseases affected by training, marching,
  prolonged standing etc. Therefore, the presumption would be
  that the disability of the appellant bore a casual connection with
  the service conditions.
E
        34. In view of the finding as recorded above, we have no
  option but to set aside ~he impugned order passed by the
  Division Bench dated 31st July, 2009 in LPA No.26 of 2004
  and uphold the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 20th
F May, 2004. The impugned order is set aside and accordingly
  the appeal is allow~d. The respondents are directed to pay the
  appellant the benefit in terms of the order passed by the learned
  Single Judge in accordance with law within three months if not
  yet paid, else they shall be liable to pay interest as per order
G passed by the learned Single Judge. No costs.

   B.B.B.                                         Appeal allowed.