Supreme Court of India
EX. GNR. LAXMANRAM POONIA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusUNLON OF INDIA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2017 INSC 170
- Decided
- 22 February 2017
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- DIPAK MISRA
Holding
In the absence of any evidence of pre‑existing disability, the disability is presumed to have arisen due to military service and the employer bears the burden of disproving attribution, entitling the appellant’s heirs to disability pension.
Summary
Laxmanram Poonia enlisted in the Indian Army in 2005 and was diagnosed with acute schizophrenia in 2007, leading to his invalidation in 2009 with a 60% disability rating. The Medical Board concluded the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, and the Armed Forces Tribunal rejected his claim for disability pension. The Supreme Court examined Regulation 173 of the Army Pension Regulations, the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982, and the Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pensions) 2002, holding that in the absence of any record of pre‑existing mental illness, a presumption arises that the disability was caused by service and the burden of proof lies on the employer. The Court found the Medical Board’s opinion unsupported and the Tribunal’s decision contrary to the statutory presumptions. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the respondents were directed to pay the disability pension to the appellant’s wife and legal heirs.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant's schizophrenia is attributable to or aggravated by military service under Regulation 173 and the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards.
- Whether the burden of proof to disprove attribution lies on the employer (Government) or the claimant.
- Whether the Medical Board's unreasoned opinion can be given conclusive effect in determining entitlement.
- Whether the Tribunal correctly applied the presumption under Rule 5/Rule 14 of the Entitlement Rules.
Legislation cited
- Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007s. 30, s. 31
Subjects
disability pensionmilitary serviceattributabilityburden of proofmedical boardpresumptionarmed forces tribunalschizophreniacasualty pensionary awards
Judgment
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 220
A EX. GNR. LAXMANRAM POONIA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.
v.
UNlON OF INDJA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2633 of2017)
B FEBRUARY 22, 2017
[DIPAK MISRA AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.)
Armed Forces:
Pension Regulatio11s for the Army, 1961 - Reg11. 173 - Army
c Rules, 1954 - 1: 13{3J(iii) - Disability pensio11 - Grant of - On
facts, appellanl e11rolled in Indian Army in 2005 and two years
later, diagnosed lo be suffering from acule schizophrenia like
psychotic disorder - Opinion of the Medical Board Iha! disability
attending the appellant assessed at 60% for life but neither
alfributable to nor aggravaled by Military Service - Subsequently,
D appellant discharged from service - Claim for granl of disability
pensio11 by appellan/ - Rejected by the tribunal holding that the
disability being constitutional in nature, not connected with Military
Service - On appeal, held: Appellant was not suffering from any
disease/disability al the time of enteri11g into Military Service -
E Department was to show that the appellant was suffering from
schizophrenia· at the time of entering i11to service by producing any
document viz. medical prescription etc - Jn the absence thereof. it
would be presumed that the appellam was in a sound mental
condition at the time of emering into the Military Service and that
the disability of the appellanl bore a casual connection wilh the
F service co11ditio11s - Tribunal did not exa111i11e the case in the lighl
of the Rules and Regu/alions - Thus, 1he order of 1he 1ribu11al nol
sustainable - Since appellant expired in 2015, Deparlment to pay
disability pension to his wife and olher legal heirs - Enti!lement
Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 - General Ruies of
G
Guide to Medical Officers (Mililary Pe11siom) 2002.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 By a bare perusal of Regulation 173 of Pension
Regulations for the Army, 1961, it is clear that dis.ability pension
in normal course is granted to an individual: who is invalided out
H of service on account of a disability which is attributable to or
220
EX. GNR. LAXMANRAM POONIA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. v. 221
UNION OF INDIA
aggravated by Military Service, and who is assessed at 20% or A
over disability, nnless specifically provided otherwise. A disability
"attributable to or aggravated by military service" is determined
as per the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards,
1982. Rule 5 relates to approach to be adopted while considering
the question of entitlement to casualty pension award. It lays
B
down certain presnmptions to be made while evaluating the
disabilities. A general presumption is to be drawn that a member
is presumed to have been in sound physical and mental condition
npon entering service except as to physical disabilities noted or
recorded at the time of entrance. If a person is discharged from
service on medical gronnd for deterioration in his health it is to c
be presumed that the deterioration in the health has taken place
dne to service. [Paras 11, 12] [227-A-C; F-G]
1.2 In the instant c;ise, as per the opinion of the Medical
Board, disability attending the appellant is acute schizophrenia
like psychotic disorder and assessed percentage of the D
disablement is 60% for life. The Medical Board in its report also
opined that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated
by Military Service. The Medical Board did not give any reason
in support of its opinion, particularly, in reference to the fact that
t.here was no note of such disease or disability available in the
E
service record of the appellant at the time of entering Military
Service. [Para 18] [235-B, F]
1.3 The opinion of the Medical Board, which is an expert
body has to be given due weight and credence. But the opinion
of the Medical Board car.not be read in isolation; it has to be
read in consonance with the Entitlement Rules for Casualty F
Pensionary Awards, 1982 and General Rules of Guide to Medical
Officers (Military Pensions) 1982. As per Chapter II of the Guide
to Medical Officers (Military Pensions), 2002, which relates to
"Entitlement: General Principles", it is made clear that the
Medical Board should examine cases in_ the light of the etiology G
of the particular disease and only after considering all the relevant
particulars of a case, the board should record its conclusions with
reasons so as to enable the Pension Sanctioning Authority to
examine the question of entitlement o{ pension as per Rules.
[Para 20] [236-E-G]
H
222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 2 S.C.R.
A 1.4 The appellant was not suffering from any disease/
disability at the time of entering into Military Service. It was on
the respondent to show that the appellant was suffering from
schizophrenia at the time of entering into service by producing
any document viz. medical prescription etc. In the absence of
any note in the service record in this regard at the time of joining
B
the Military Service, the Medical Board should have called for
the service records and looked into the same; but nothing is on
record to suggest that any such record was called for by the
Medical Board to arrive at the conclusion that the disability was
not due to Military Service. The Medical Board simply stated
c that the disability is neither attributable to nor aggravated .by
Military Service. in the absence of any evidence on record to
show that the appellant was suffering from any such disease like
schizophrenia at the time of entering into the Military Service, it
would be presumed that the appellant was in a sound mental
condition at the time of entering into the Military Service and
D
the deterioration of health has taken place due to Military Service.
[Para 22] (239-B-D, FJ
1.5 The tribunal did not examine the case at hand in the
light of the Army Pension Regulations, 1961, the Entitlement
Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 and General Rules
E of Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pensions) 2002. Applying
the principles of Dliaramvir Singfz's case and Rajbir Singfz's case,
it has to be presumed that the disability of the appellant bore a
casual connection with the service conditions. After invalidation
from the service, the appellant passed away on 01.06.2015. The
F legal heirs were ordered to be substituted. Hence, wife of the
appellant and other legal heirs would be entitled to disability
pension as per the Rules. The impugned order is .set aside. The
respondents are directed to pay the disability pension to the wife
and other-substituted legal heirs of appellant as per the Rules
and within the stipulated period. [Paras 23, 24] (239-G-H; 240-
G A-C J
Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and Ors. (2013) 7
SCC 316; Union ofIndia and Anr. v. Rajbir Singh (2015)
12 SCC 264: (201~] 2 SCR 183 - relied on.
Union of India v. Ravinder Kumar (2015) 12 SCC 291
H - referred to.
EX. GNR. LAXMANRAM POONIA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. v. 223
UNION OF INDIA
Case Law Reference A
(2013) 1 sec 316 relied on Para 14
[2Q15J 2 SCR 183 relied on Para 17
(201si 12 sec 291 referred to Para 19
CIVIL. APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2633 B
of2017.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.03.2014 of the Armed
Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Jaipur, Rajasthan in 0. A. No. 200/
2010.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Adv. for the Appellants.
c
Atma Ram Nadkarni, ASG., Ms. V. D. Makhija, Sr. Adv., Dr.
Nishesh Sharma, V. Balaj i, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advs. for the
Respondents~
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D
R. BANUMATHI, J. I. This appeal arises out of the order
dated 21 .03.2014 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench,
Jaipur, Rajasthan in O.A. No. 200 of20 I 0, thereby declining award of
disability pension to the appellant. The Tribunal vide order dated
23.02.2016 also dismissed M.A. No. 390 of2015 filed by the appellant E
seeking leave to appeal under Section 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal
Act.
2. The facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are as follows:-
The appellant was enrolled inthe Indian Army on 14.09.2005. His basic
military training was convened at Army Air Defence Centre Nasik Road F
Camp, commencing from 16.09.2005 and after completion of training,
he was posted at 27 AD Regiment for further service. It is the case of
the appellant that on the eve of Diwali Festival in November, 2007, he
was overburdened with work due to scarcity of staff. Due to continuous
restless duty hours for several days, he suffered hypertension resulting
in lack of sleep and hunger. Ultimately, he requested the Commanding G
Officer of his Unit to sanction him leave considering his critical condition.
However, instead of granting leave, the Commanding Officer got him
admitted in I 74 Military Hospital on I 1.11.2007, acknowledging the critical
condition of the appellant. The Doctor diagnosed the appellant to be
suffering from acute schizophrenia like psychotic disorder. The H
224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . (2017] 2 S.C.R.
A appellant was discharged from 174 Military Hospital on 14.03.2008.
Thereafter, he was shifted to Military Hospital Cha11di111a11dir and was
admitted to psychiatric ward on 28.08.2008. He was subjected to a Military
Board held at 174 Military Hospital for his recategorisation. After some
time, he was granted sick leave for a few days. However, he was again
admitted to 174 Military Hospital on 15.02.2009, and was also subjected
B
to a Medical Board and thereafter, he was discharged from the hospital·
and was sent to his Unit.
3. As per the appellant, he was again entrusted with hard duty
on 02.05.2009 and was also compelled to work at night hours, because
of which the disease so detected again aggravated. Ultimately, he had
c to be admitted to Command Hospital Chandimandir on 05.05.2009,
from where he got discharged on 12.06.2009. He was again admitted to
Command Hospital Chandimandir on 10.07.2009, from where he was
discharged on 06. l 0.2009. He was brought before a duly constituted
Invaliding Medical Board on 09.09.2009 to assess the cause and degree
D of disablement. The Invaliding Medical Board opined that he was suffering
from 'acute Schizophrenia like psychotic disorder'. Medical Board
further opined that the disability being constitutional in nature is not
connected with Military Service. His disability was assessed at 60% for
life but was viewed as neither attrrbuiable to nor aggravated by Military
Service. Ultimately, he was invalid.ed out of service with effect from
E 07.10.2009 under Rule 13(3)(iii) of the Army Rules, 1954. His claim for
grant of disability pension was forwarded to the Principal Controller of
Defence Accounts (Pension) Allahabad, which was rej~cted vide order
dated 02.07.2010 on the ground that the disability suffered by the applicant
is neither attributable to nor aggravated by Military Service.
F 4. The appellant challenged the order dated 02 ..07.2010 by filing
an application before the Tribunal seeking disability pension. The Tribunal
dismissed the application filed by the appellant holding that the disability
being 'constitutional' in nature is not connected~ith Military Se.rvice.
His disability was assessed at 60% for life; but was viewed as neither
G attributable to nor aggravated by Military Service. The Tribunal
specifically held that though the Invaliding Medical Board categorically
opined that he was suffering from 'Acute Schizophrenia like psychotic
disordc1·', the disability of the applicant being constitutional in nature
cannot be considered to be connected with Military Service. Thus, holding
that there was no casual connection between disablement and the Military·
H
EX. GNR. LAXMANRAM POONIA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. v. 225
UNION OF INDIA [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
Service for attributability or aggravation to be conceded, the Tribunal A
dismissed the application.
5. The Appellant Laxman Ram Paonia expired on 01.06.2015 at
Maulsar. The wife of the appellant filed application being M.A. No.
390/2015 under Section 31 of Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 before
the Tribunal seeking leave to file appeal before this Court against the B
final order dated 21.03.2014 passed by Armed Forces Tribunal in O.A.
No. 200/20 I 0 and the same was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order
dated 23.02.2016. Challenging the order passed by the Tribunal, wife of
Laxman Ram Paonia has filed the present Civil Appeal under Section 30
of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.
c
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal
was not justified in dismissing the application filed by the appellant ignoring
the settled position oflaw that if the disability for which a personnel was
invalided out of service was not there at the time of recruitment, as per
the decision in Dllaramvir Singh v. Union ofIndia and Ors. (2013)
7 sec 316, then it must be presumed that the disability occurred due to D
Military Service. The counsel contended that relying solely on the opinion
of Medical Board, it could not have been said that the disability was
neither attributable to nor aggravated by the Military Service. Drawing
ourattention to Rule 14 of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary
Awards, 1982, the appellant contended that the Tribunal ought to have E
held that Laxman Ram Paonia developed Schizophrenia due to Military
Service and the conditions for awarding disability pension are satisfied
and Tribunal should have awarded the disability pension.
7. Learned Additional Solicitor General contended that the opinion
of the Medical Board that the disease is held neither attributable to nor F
·aggravated by Military Service is unimpeachable so far, and thus, the
appellant was rightly denied disability pension. It was further contended
that psychiatric disorder of the person cannot be detected by the Medical
Board conducting medical examination at the time of enrollment in service,
in the absence of previous history or overt manifestation and it was on
the appellant to specifically prove that he was not suffering from' Acute G
Schizophrenia like psychotic disorder' at the time of his enrollment,
which he failed to so. The Additional Solicitor General contended that
application filed by the appellant seeking disability pension was rightly
dismissed by the Tribunal and no reason warranting interference.
H
226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 2 S.C.R.
A 8. We have heard the parties before us and have also perused the
impugned order and materials available on record.
9. When the appellant was enrolled in the Indian Army on
14.09.2005, nothing was recorded in his service record that he was
suffering from any disease or disability. Likewise, during the entire period
B of training and while he was performing his service at 27 AD Regiment
·till 2007, there was no sign of any abnormal behaviour or disability. For
the first time, in or about 2007, the appellant is alleged to have shown his
agitated behaviour. It is the case of the respondent that on the expiry of
his sick leave on 11.12.2008, the appellant was admitted to Command
Hospital (Western Command) Chandimandir where he was
c downgraded to medical category S3(T-24) 1-11 A IP IE I for six months
with effect from 13.03.2008. The appellant was again admitted to the
Military Hospital on I 0.02.2009 for review of his medical category where
his medical categorization was upgraded to S2 (T-24) l-llAIPIEI with
effect from 11.02.2009 and was discharged from the hospital on
D 18.02.2009. The appellant was again admitted to the Command Hospital
Chandimandir on 05.05.2009 and he was finally discharged from the
service on 26.06.2009. Considering appellant's disability and percentage
of disability, as assessed by the Medical Board, the respondents found it
apposite to invalidate appellant's service under the provisions of Rule
13(3)(iii)6ftheArmy Rules, 1954.
E
10. The point falling for consideration is whether the
schizophrenia like psychotic disorder disability of the appellant
Laxman Ram Poonia was attributable or aggravated due to Military
Service and whether the appellant is entitled to disability pension.
F 11. Regulation 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 196 l
specifically deals with the primary conditions for the grant of disability
pension. It reads as under:-
"173. Primary conditions for the grant of disability
pe11sio11.-Unless otherwise specifically provided a disability
pension consisting of service element and disability element
G
may be granted to an individual who is invalided out of service
on account ofa 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 to or a!!gravated
H
EX. GNR. LAXMANRAM POONIA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. v. 227
UNION OF INDIA [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
by military service shall be detennined under the rule in Appendix A
II."
By abare perusal of the aforesaid Regulation, it is clear that disability
pension in normal course is granted to an individual: (i) who is invalided
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 B
disability, unless specifically provided otherwise.
12. A disability "attributable to or aggravated by military
service" is determined as per the Entitlement Rules for Casualty
Pensionary Awards, 1982, as shown in Appendix II. Rule 5 of the
said Rules relates to approach to be adopted while considering the question C
of entitlement to casualty pension award. It lays down certain
presumptions to be made while evaluating the disabilities. Rule 5 reads
as under:-
"5. The approach to the question of entitlement to casualty
pensionary awards and evaluation of disabilities shall be based D
on the following presumptions:
Prior to and during service
(a) 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 entrance. E
(b) In the event of his subsequently being discharged from
service on medical grounds any deterioration in his health, which
has taken place, is due to service."
From Rule 5 we find that a general presumption is to be drawn that a
F
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 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.
13. Other relevant provisions for our purposes are Rules l 4(a), G
l 4(b), 14(c) and 14(d) of Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary
Awards, 1982 as amended vide Government of India, Ministry of
Defence Letter No. I (I )/81 /D(Pen-C) dated 20-6-1996, and the same
read as follows:-
H
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 2 S.C.R.
A Diseases:
14. (a) For acceptance of a disease as attributable to military
service, the following t~o conditions must be satisfied
simultaneously:
(i) That the disease has arisen during the period of military
B service, and
(ii) That the disease has been caused by the conditions of
employment in military service.
(b) If medical authority holds, for reasons to be stated, that the
c disease although present at the time of enrolment could not
have been detected on medical examination prior to acceptance
for service, the disease, wi II not be deemed to have arisen
during service. In case where it is established that the military
service did not contribute to the onset or adversely affect the
course (sic of the) disease, entitlement for casualty pensionary
D award will not be conceded even if the disease has arisen
during service.
(c) Cases in which it is established that conditions of military
service did not detennine or contribute to the onset of the
disease but, influenced the subsequent course of the disease,
E will fall for acceptance on the basis of aggravation.
(d) Jn· 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."
14. Afterreferringtotheaboveamended Rules 14(a), 14(b), 14(c)
and 14(d) of Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards,
1982, in Dlwramvir Singh v. Union oflmlia (Ind Ors. (20 I 3) 7 SCC
G 3 I 6, this Court clarified the law on the point in the following words:-
"21.1. As per Rule 14(a) we notice that for acceptance of a
disease as attributable to military service, conditions are to be
satisfied that the disease has been arisen during the military
service, and caused by the conditions of employment in military
H
EX. GNR. LAXMANRAM POONIA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. v. 229
UNION OF INDIA [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
service which is similar to Rule 14(c) of the printed version as A
relied on by the appellant. Rule I4(b) cited by the respondents is
also similar to the published Rule 14.
21.2. 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 B
the subsequent course of the disease, will fall for acceptance on
the basis of aggravation.
21.3. Rule I 4(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 c
course of such disease was adversely affected due to factors
related to the conditions of military service.
22. 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 respondent employers in D
terms of Rule 9 and not the claimant and in case of any reasonable
doubt the benefit will go more liberally to the claimants."
15. Further, referring to the. Pension Regulations for the Army,
1961 and the General Rules of Guide to Medical Officers (Military
Pensions) 2002 and observing that whether deterioration of disability E
was due to Military Service or not will vary according to the nature of
disease/disability, in paras (23) to (26) of Dftaramvir (supra), this Court
held as under:-
"23. The Rules to be followed by the Medical Board in disposal
of special cases have been shown under Chapter VIII of the
F
General Rules ofGuideto Medical Officers (Military Pensions),
2002. Rule 423 deals with "Attributability to service" relevant
portion 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
G
attributable to service, 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. It is however, essential to establish whether the
disability or death bore a causal connection with the service
H
230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 2 S.C.R.
A conditions. All evidence both direct and circumstantial will be
taken into account and benefit ofreasonable 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 of a degree of cogency, which though not reaching certainty,
nevertheless carries a high degree of probability. In this
B
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 can be dismissed
with the sentence 'of course it is possible but not in the least
c 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 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.
D
• * •
(c) The cause of a disability or death resulting from a 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
E
contributed to the onset of the disease. Cases, in which it is
estabfished that service conditions did not determine or
contribute to the 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
F discharge or death will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in
service if no note of it was made.atthe time of the 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 service, the disease will not be deemed to have
G
arisen during service.
(ti) The question, whether a disability or death resulting from
disease is attributable to or aggravated by service or not, will
be decided as regards its medical aspects by a Medical Board
or by the medical officer who signs the Death Certificate. The
H
EX. GNR. LAXMANRAM POONIA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. v. 231
UNION OF INDIA [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
Medical Board/Medical Officer will specify reasons for their/ A
his opinion. The opinion of the Medical Board/Medical Officers,
insofar as it relates to 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
B
by service for the purpose of pensionary benefits wil I, however,
be decided by the pension sanctioning authority."
24. Therefore, as per Rule 423 the following procedures are to
be followed by the Medical Board:
24.1. Evidence both direct and circumstantial to be taken into c
account by the Board and benefit of reasonable doubt, if any
would go to the individual;
24.2. A disease which has led to an individual's discharge or
death will ordinarily be treated to have been arisen in service, if
no note of it was made at the time of the individual's acceptance D
for service in the Armed Forces.
24.3. If the medical opinion holds that the disease could not have
been detected on medical examination prior to 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 E
for the same.
25. Chapter lI of the Guide to Medical Officers (Military
Pensions), 2002 relates to "Entitlement: General Principles". In
the opening Para I, it is made clear that the Medical Board should
examine cases in the light of the etiology of the particular disease
F
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 Authority would be able
to appreciate fully in 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 G
aforesaid paragraph reads as follows:
"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 H
232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 2 S.C.R.
A 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 statements, collecting and
weighing the value of evidence, and in some instances, matters
of military law and discipline. Accordingly, Medical Boards
B
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
Authority, a lay body, would be able to appreciate fully in
c detennining the question of entitlement according to the Rules.
In expressing their opinion Medical Officers should comment
on the evidence both for and against the c6t1cession of •
entitlement. In this connection, it is as well to remember that a
bare medical opinion without reasons in support will be of no
value to the Pension Sanctioning Authority."
D
· 26. Para 6 suggests the procedure to be followed by service
authorities if there is no note, or adequate note, ii1 the service
records on which the claio1 is based."
16. We have extensively quoted the judgment from Dlwramvir
E Singh 's case as it has referred and quoted almost all the governing
regulations and rules like Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, the
Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 and General
Rules of Guide to Medlcal Officers (Military Pensions) 2002. After
referring to the above Regulations and Rules in Dlwramvir Si11gft
(sapm) in para (29), this Court summarized the legal position as under:-
F
"29. A conjoint reading of various provisions, reproduced above,
makes it clear that:
29.1. Disability pension to be granted to an ind.ividual who is
invalided from service on account of a disability which is
attributable to or aggravated by military service in non-battle
G casualty and is assessed at 20% or over. The question whether
a disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service to
be determined under the Entitlement Rules for Casualty
Pensionary Awards, 1982 of Appendix 11 (Regulation 173).
29.2. A member is to be presumed in sound physical and mental
H condition upon entering service ifthere is no note or record at
EX. GNR. LAXMANRAM POONIA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. v. 233
UNION OF INDIA [R: BANUMATHI, J.]
the time of entrance. In the event of his subsequently being A
discharged from service on medical grounds any deterioration in
his health is to be presumed due to service [Rule 5 read with
Rule 14(b)].
29.3. The onus of proof is not on the claimant (employee), the
corollary is that onus of proof that the condition for non- B
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).
29.4. If a disease is accepted to have been as having arisen in
service, it must also be established thatthe conditions of military c
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)].
29.5. If no note of any disability•''" disease was made at the
time of individual's acceptance for military service, a disease D
which has led to an individual's discharge or death will be deemed
to have arisen in service [Rule 14(b)].
29.6. If medical opinion holds 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
E
during service, the Medical Board is required to state the reasons
[Rule 14(b )]; and
29.7. It is mandatory for the Medical Board to follow the
guidelines laid down in Chapter II of the Guide to Medical Officers
(Military Pensions), 2002- "Entitlement: General Principles",
F
including Paras 7, 8 and 9 as referred to above (para 27)."
17. The law laid down in Dlum1mvir (supra) was re-affirmed in
Union of India andAnr. v. RajbirSinglt (2015) 12 SCC 264, where
this Court observed that the legal position laid down in Dfum1mvir Singft '.f
case is in tune with the Pension Regulations, the Entitlement Rules and
G
Guidelines issued to the Medical Officers. Relevant excerpt from the
said judgment is contained in paras ( 14) and ( 15), which read as under:-
".14. The legal position as stated in Dharamvir Singh case (2013)
7 SCC 316 is, in our opinion, in tune with the Pension Regulations,
the Entitlement Rules and the Guidelines issued to the Medical
H
234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20 I 7] 2 S.C.R.
A Officers. The essence of the rules, as seen earlier, is that a
member of the armed forces is presumed to be in sound physical
and mental condition at the time of his entry into service ifthere
is no note or record to the contrary made at the time of such
entry. More importantly, in the event ofhis subsequent discharge
from service on medical ground, any deterioration in his health is
B
presumed to be due to military service. This necessarily implies
thafno sooner a member of the force is discharged on medical
ground his entitlement to claim disability pension will arise unless
of course the employer is in a position io rebut the presumption
that the disability which he suffered was neither attributable to
c nor aggravated by military service.
15. From Rule 14(b) of the Entitlement Rules it is further clear
that if the medical opinion were to hold that the disease suffered
by the member of the armed forces could not have been detected
prior to acceptance for service, the Medical Board must state
D the reasons for saying so. Last but not the least is the fact that
the provision for payment of disability pension is a beneficial
provision which ought to be interpreted liberally so as to benefit
those who have been sent home with a disability at times even
before they completed their tenure in the armed forces. There
may indeed be cases, where the disease was wholly unrelated
E to military service, but, in order that denial of disability pension
can be justified on that ground, it must be affirmatively proved
that the disease had nothing to do with such service. The burden
to establish such a disconnect would lie heavily upon the employer
for otherwise the rules raise a presumption that the deterioration ·
F in the health of the member of the service is on account of military
service or aggravated by it. A soldier cannot be asked to prove
that the disease was contracted by him on account of military
service or was aggravated by the same. The very fact that he
was upon proper physical and other tests found fit to serve in the
army should rise as indeed the rules do provide for a presumption
G that he was disease-free at the time of his ent1y into service.
That presumption continues till it is proved by the employer that
the disease was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military
service. For the employer to say so, the least that is required is a
statement of reasons supporting that view. That we feel is the
H
EX. GNR. LAXMANRAM POONIA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. v. 235
UNION OF INDIA [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
true essence of the rules which ought to be kept in view all the A
time while dealing with cases of disability pension."
18. In the present case, as per the opinion of the Medical Board,
disability attending the appellant is acute schizophrenia like psychotic
disorder and assessed percentage of the disablement is 60% for life.
The Medical Board in its report dated 09.09.2009 has also opined that B
the disability is neither attributable to nor aggravated by Military Service.
The relevant portion of Medical Board's opinion is as under:-
" 1. Though the disablement has been mentioned in percentage
in para 6 of Part V, this does not mean eligibility for disability
pension since the Disability/Disabilities is/are neither attributable c
to nor aggravated by service"
2.. Opinion of assessment by the Board is recommendatory ii{
natwe and is subject to acceptance by Pension Sanctioning
Authority.
Or D
I. Individual is not entitled for disability pension forthe disability/
disabilities since the same is/are not attributable to/aggravated
by service.
2. Opinion of assessment by the Board is recommendatory in
E
nature and is subject to acceptance by Pension Sanctioning
Authority."
Notably, the Medical Board has not given any reason in support of its
opinion, particularly, in reference to the fact that there \Vas no note of
such disease or disability available in the service record of the appellant
F
at the time of entering Military Service.
19. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for respondent-
Union of India has submitted that when the Medical Board recorded a
specific finding thatthe disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated
by the Military Service, the same must be gi\len due weight and credence.
In support ofhis contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on dictum G
of this Court in Union oflnditi v. Ravinder Kumar (2015) 12 SCC
291, wherein it was held as under:-
"4. This Court recently decided an identical case in Union of
India v. Jujhar Singh (2011.) 7 SCC 735 and after reconsidering
H
236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 2 S.C.R.
A a large number of earlier judgments including Minist1y of
Defence v. A. V. Damodaran (2009) 9 SCC 140, Union ofIndia
v. Baljit Singh ( 1996) 11 SCC 315 and ES! Corpn. v. Francis
De Costa ( 1996) 6 SCC I, came to the conclusion that in view
of Regulation 179, a discharged person can be granted disability
pension only ifthe disability is attributable to or aggravated by
B
Military Service and such a finding has been recorded by Service
Medical Authorities. In case the Medical Authorities record the
specific finding to the effectthat disability was neither attributable
to nor aggravated by the Military Service, the court should not
ignore such a finding for the reason that Medical Board is
c specialised authority composed of expert medical doctors and it
is a final authority to give opinion regarding attributability and
aggravation of the disability due to the Military Service and the
conditions of service resulting in the disablement of the individual.
A person claiming disability pension must be able to show a
reasonable nexus between the act, omission or commission
D
resulting in an injury/ailment to the person and the normal
expected standard of duties and way of life expected from such
person. (See also Govt. of India (Minist1y of Defence) v. Ajit
Singh (2009) 7 sec 328.J"
20. There is no gainsaying that the opinion of the Medical Board,
E which is an expert body has to be given due weight and credence. But
the opinion of the Medical Board cannot be read in isolation; it has to be
read in consonance with the Entitlement Rules for Casualty
Pensionary,Awards, 1982 and General Rules of Guide to Medical
Officers (Military Pensions) 1982. As per Chapter II of the Guide to
F Medical Officers (Military Pensions), 2002, which relates to "Entitlement:
General Principles", it is made clear that the Medical Board should
examine cases in the light of the etiology of the particular disease and
only after considering all the relevant particulars of a case, the board
should record its conclusions with reasons so as to enable the Pension
Sanctioning Authority to examine the question of entitlement of pension
G as per Rules.
21. As referred to above, in D/wramvir Singh 's case, it was
observed that it is mandatory for the Medical Board to follow the guidelines
laid down in Chapter II of the General Rules of Guide to Medical
Officers (Military Pensions), 2002 6 "Entitlement: General
H Principles", relevant extract in this behalf reads as under:-
EX. GNR. LAXMANRAM POONTA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. v. 237
UNION OF INDIA [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
"27. Para 7 talks of evidentiary value attached to the record of A
a member's condition at the commencement of service e.g. pre-
enrolment history of an injury, or disease like epilepsy, mental
disorder, etc. Further, guidelines have been laid down at Paras 8
and 9, as quoted below:
"7. Evidentiary value is attached to the record of a member's B
condition at the commencement of service, and such record
has, therefore, to be accepted unless any different conclusion
has been reached due to the inaccuracy of the record in a
particular case orotherwise. Accordingly, ifthe 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 of an injury or disease D
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 categorisation ofthe member on enrolment and/or
cause him to perfonn duties hannful to his condition. Again,
there may occasionally be direct evidence of the contraction E
of a disability, otherwise than by service. In al I such cases,
though the disease cannot be considered to have been caused
by service, the question of aggravation by subsequent service
conditions will need examination.
The following are some of the diseases which ordinarily escape F
detection on enrolment:
(a) Certain congenital abnormalities which are latent and
only discoverable on full investigations e.g. Congenital
Defect of Spine, Spina bifida, Sacralisation,
G
(b) Certain familial and hereditary diseases e.g.
Haemophilia, Congential Syphilis, Haemoglobinopa(hy.
(c) Certain diseases of the heart and blood vessels e.g.
Coronary Atherosclerosis, Rheumatic Fever.
H
238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 2 S.C.R.
A (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 U leers,
Epilepsy, Mental Disorders, HIV Infections.
(e) Relapsing forms of mental disorders which have intervals
B of normality.
(f) Diseases which have periodic attacks e.g. Bror.chial
Asthma, Epilepsy, Csom, etc.
8. The question whether the invalidation or death of a member
has resulted from service conditions, has to be judged in the light
c of the record.ofthe member's condition on enrolment as noted
in service documents and of all other available evidence both
direct and indirect.
In addition to any documentary evidence relative to the member's
condition to entering the service and during service, the member
D must be carefully and closely questioned on the circumstances
which led to the advent of his disease, the duration, the family
history, his pre-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
E opinions on attributability, aggravation or otherwise are supported
by cogent reasons; the approving authority should also be
satisfied that this question has been dealt with in such a way as
to leave no reasonable doubt.
9. On the question whether any persisting deterioration has
occurred, it is to be remembered that invalidation from service
F
does not necessarily imply that the member's health has
deteriorated during service. 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 have been a temporary worsening during service,
G but if the treatment given before discharge was on grounds of
expediency to prevent a recurrence, no lasting damage was
inflicted by service and there would be no ground for admitting
entitlement. Again a member may have been invalided from
service because he is found so weak mentally that it is impossible
to make him an efficient soldier. This would not mean that his
H
EX. GNR. LAXMANRAM POONIA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. v. 239
UNION OF INDIA [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
condition has worsened during service, but only that it is worse A
than was realised on enrolment in the army. To sum up, in each
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."
B
22. In the present case, it is undisputed that the appellant was not
suffering from any disease/disability at the time of entering into Military
Service. It was .on the respondent to show that the appellant was
suffering. from schizophrenia at the time of entering into service by
producing any document viz. medical prescription etc. In the absence
of any note in the service record in this regard at the time ofjoining the c
Military Service, the Medical Board should have called for the service
records and looked into the same; but nothing is on record to suggest
that any such record was called for by the Medical Board to arrive at
the conclusion that the disability was not due to Military Service. The
Medical Board simply stated that the disability is neither attributable to D
nor aggravated by Military Service. The relevant portion reads as under:
"I. Though the disablement has been mentioned in percentage
in para 6 of Part V, this does not mean eligibility for disability
pension since the Disability/Disabilities is/are neither attributable
to nor aggravated by service" E
2. Opinion of assessment by the Board is recommendatory in
nature and is subject to acceptance by Pension Sanctioning
Authority."
In the absence of any evidence on record to show that the appellant was
suffering from any such disease like schizophrenia at the time of entering F
into the Military Service, it will be presumed that the appellant was in a
sound mental condition at the time of entering into the Military Service
and the deterioration of health has taken place due to Military Service.
23. Based on the above discussion, we hold that the Tribunal did
not examine the case at hand in the light of fhe Anny Pension Regulations, G
1961, the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 and
General Rules ofGuid_e to Medical Officers (Military Pensions) 2002
and,. therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Applying the
principles of Dliaramvir SingII 's case and Rajbir Singll 's case, it has
to be presumed that the disability of the appellant bore a casual connection
H
240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 2 S,C.R.
A with the service conditions. The appellant was diagnosed to be suffering
from medical disability at 60% for life on 09.09.2009 and he was
discharged from service on 7.10.2009. After invalidation from the service,
the appellant passed away on 01.06.2015. By order dated 13.02.2017 in
I.A. No. 3/2016, the legal heirs have been ordered to be substituted.
Hence wife of the appellant and other legal heirs shall be entitled to
B
disability pension as per the Rules. ·
24. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is
allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the disability pension to
the wife and other substituted legal heirs of Laxmanram Poonia as per
the Rules and the same shall be complied within eight weeks from today.
c No costs.
,Nidhi Jain Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "disability pension"Sign in to search