Holding

The Court held that, in the absence of proof that military service contributed to the onset of schizophrenia and given the Medical Board’s finding of non‑attributability, the respondent is not entitled to a disability pension.

Summary

Keshar Singh, a rifleman discharged from the Army in 1986, was diagnosed with schizophrenia. The Medical Board concluded that the disorder was neither pre‑existing nor attributable to military service. The High Court, relying on para 7(b) of Appendix II of the 1961 Pension Regulations, held that the disease was deemed to have arisen in service and granted a disability pension. On appeal, the Union of India argued that para 7(c) and Regulation 423 require proof that service conditions contributed to the disease’s onset. The Supreme Court examined the regulatory provisions, held that the Medical Board’s opinion on causation is decisive, and found no material establishing a causal link between service and the illness. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, denying the pension, but ordered that the pension already paid not be recovered.

Issues considered

Whether schizophrenia, leading to discharge, is attributable to military service under Regulation 48, Appendix II para 7(b) and 7(c) of the Pension Regulations, 1961.
Whether the opinion of the Medical Board that the disease is not attributable to service is conclusive for pension entitlement.
Whether the respondent satisfied the requirement that service conditions determined or contributed to the onset of the disease as mandated by Regulation 423.
Whether pension already paid can be reclaimed from the respondent.

Subjects

disability pensionmilitary servicemedical board opinionPension Regulations 1961attributabilityschizophreniaarmy dischargeappellate jurisdiction

Judgment

A UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
v.
.....'t.-
KESHAR SINGH

APRIL 20, 2007

B [DR. ARIJITPASAYAT AND I,PKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]

Service law: ..
~
Pension Regulations, 1961:
c
Regulation 49, Appendix IL para 7 (c ) read with para 7(b), and
Regulation 423-Army-Disability pension-Claim for-Expression
"attributable to service "-Connotation of-Rifleman in Army-Discharged
on report of Medical Board that soldier was suffering from Schizophrenia-
Medical Board also opined that disability did not exist before entering, the
D service, but was not attributable to military service-Held: In view of legal
position and position and opinion of Medical Board, soldier was not entitled
to disability pension-Armed Forces-Army-Disability pension.
"" ~
Respondent was discharged form Army on the report of the Medical
E Board, which indicated his non-suitability for continuance in the Army as he
was suffering from Schizophrenia, and opined that the disability did not exist
before entering the ser_vice and was not connected with service. His appeal
was dismissed by the appellate authority. He filed a writ petition and the Single
Judge as also the Division Bench in special appeal, on the strength of para
7(b) of Appendix II referred to in Regulation 48 of the Pension Regulations,
F 1961, held that the respondent was entitled to disability pension.

In the appeal filed by the Union oflndia, it was contended that the High
Court lost sight of para 7(c) of Appendix II and Regulation 423 of the
Regulations.

G Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. Clause (c) of Para 7 of Appendix II referred to in Regulation .;
48 of the Pension Regulations, 1961 makes the position clear that if a disease
is accepted as having arisen in service it must also be established that the

H 408
U.O.l. v. KESHARSINGH[PASAYAT,J.] 409
-> conditions of military service determined or contributed on the onset of the A
disease and that the conditions are due to the circumstances of duty in military
service. There is no material placed by the respondent in this regard.
[Para 5) (411-CJ

1.2. Further, Regulation 423 explains the terms "attributable to service"
and lays down that the cause of a disability or death resulting from a disease B
~ . will be regarded as attributable to service when it is established that the
disease arose during service and conditions and circumstances of duty in
,;!
. the armed forces determined and contributed to the onset of the disease. It is
essential to establish whether the disability or death bore a casual connection
with the service conditions. The opinion of he medical board/medical officer,
in so far as it relates to the actual cause of the disability or death and the
c
circumstances in which it originated will be regarded as final. In the instance
case, opinion of the Medical Board was clearly to the effect that the illness
suffered by the soldier was not attributable to the military service.
[Para 7 and 11) (412-C-D; E; 413-C; F; 415-G]
D
1.3. In view of the legal position and the opinion of the Medical Board,
.. ~-
both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court were not
justified in their respective conclusions. The respondent is not entitled to
disability pension. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case,
payment already made to the respondent by way of disability pension shall not
be recovered from him. [Para 111 [415-GI E

Union of India and Anr. v. Baljit Singh, (1996) ll SCC 315; Union of
India and Anr. v. Dhir Singh China, Colonel (Retd.), [2003) 2 SCC 383 and
Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) and Ors. v. S. Balachandra Nair,
f [20051 13 sec 128, relied on.
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 762 of200L

From the Judgment and Order dated 22.09.1998 of the High Court of
Judicature, at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 812of1998.

R. Mohan, A.S.G., V. Mohana, Rajni Singh, R.C. Kathiya and 8.V. Balaram G
Das for the Appellants.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment
H
410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A rendered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the
special appeal filed by the appellant against the order of learned Single Judge.
The controversy lies within a very narrow compass i.e. whether the respondent
is eligible to disability pension.

2. Background facts giving rise to the present dispute is as follows:
B
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 Medical Board's report indicated his non-suitability for
continuance in army. Medical Board opined that the disability did not exist
C before entering service and it was not connected with service. An appeal was
preferred before prescribed appellate authority which was 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 entering to army service that
D 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 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
E military service. Accordingly, it was held that the respondent was entitled 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
F 7(c). Both 7(b) and 7(c) have to be read together. They read as follows"

"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, if medical opinion holds for reasons to be stated,
G 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.

7( c) If a disease is accepted as having arisen in service, it must
also be established that the cor.ditions of military service determined
H or contributed to the onset of the disease and that the conditions
.. U.0.1. v. KESHARSINGH[PASAYAT,J.] 411
~; were due to the circumstances of duty in military service." A
4. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent.

5. 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 B
acceptance for military service. An exception, however, is carved 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 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 c
conditions of military service detennined or contributed to the onset of the
disease and that the conditions are due to the circumstances of duty in
military service. There is no material placed by the respondent in this regard.

6. Reference was also made by learned ASG to Pension Regulations for
D
the Anny. Rule 173 of such Regulations read as follows:

F ) Primary conditions for the grant of disability pension:

"173. Unless otherwise specifically provided a disability pension may
be granted to an individual who is invalided from service on account
of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service E
and is assessed at 20 percent or above.

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

--,. Relevant portion in Appendix II reads as follows: F
"2. Disablement or death shall be accepted as due to military service
provided it is certified that

(a) The disablement is due to wound, injury or disease which
(i) is attributable to military service; or G
,, (ii) existed before or arose during military service and has been
and remains aggravated thereby;
(b) the death was due to or hastened by-

(i) a wound, injury or disease which was attributable to military H
412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 5 S.C.R. ....
A service, or '1._ -

(ii) the aggravation by military service of a wound, injury or
disease which existed before or arose during military service.

Note: The Rule also covers cases of death after discharge/invaliding
from service.
B
3. There must be a casual connection between disablement or death
and military service for attributability or aggravation to be conceded. ' ..
4. In deciding on the issue of entitlement all the evidence, both direct ~

and circumstantial, will be taken into account and the benefit or
c reasonable doubt will be given to the claimant. This benefit will be
given more liberally to the claimant in field service case."

7. Regulation 423 also needs to be extracted. The same reads as follows:

"423. Attributability to Service:
D (a) For the purpose of determinmg whether the cause of a disability
or death is or is not attributable to service, it is immaterial whether
l, l
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
E the disability or death bore a casual 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 of a degree of cogency, which though not reaching certainty,
F nevertheless carry the 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 favour, which can be dismissed with the
G 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 case would be one in which the benefit of doubt could be
given more liberally to the individual, in cases occurring in Field
H
U.0.1. v. KESHARSINGH(PASAYAT,J.) 413
-/ "" Service/Active Service areas. A
(b) The cause of a disability or death resulting from wound or injury,
will be regarded as attributable to service if the wound/injury was
sustained during the actual performance of "duty" in armed forces.
In case of injuries which were self inflicted or duty to an
individual's own serious negligence or misconduct, the Board B
will also comment how far the disability resulted from self-
> • infliction, negligence or misconduct.
.... (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 c
contributed to the onset of the disease. Cases, in which it is
established 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 discharge or death will D
ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service if no note of it was
~
,.. made at the 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 arisen during service. E
(d) The question, whether a disability or death is attributable to or
aggravated by service or not, will be dedded as regards its
medical aspects by a medical board or by the medical officer who
signs the death certificate. The medical board/medical officer will
- ... specify reasons for their/his opinion. The opinion of the medical F
board/medical officer, in so far 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 attributed to service will, however,
be decided by the pension sanctioning authority.
(e) To assist the medical officer who signs the death certificate or the G
medical board in the case of an invalid, the C.O. unit will furnish
a report on:-
(i) AFMS F-81 in all cases other than those due to injuries.
(ii) IAFY-2006 in all cases of injuries other than battle injuries.
H
414 SUPREME COUlff REPORTS [2007) 5 S.C.R.

A (f) In cases where award of disability pension or reassessment of
disabilities is concerned, a medical board is always necessary
and the certificate of a single medical officer will not be accepted
except in case of stations where it s not possible or feasible to
assemble a regular medical board for such purposes. The certificate
of a single medical officer in the latter case will be furnished on
B a medical board form and countersigned by the ADMS (Army)/
DMS (Navy)/DMS (Air).
.'
8. In Union of India and Anr. v. Baljit Singh, [1996] II SCC 315 this
Court had taken note of Rule 173 of the Pension Regulations. It was observed
C that where the Medical Board found that there was absence of proof of the
injury/illness having been sustained due to military service or being
attributable thereto, the High Court's direction to the Government to pay
disability pension was not correct. It was inter alia observed as follows:

"6 ...... It is seen that various criteria have been prescribed in the ·
D
guidelines under the Rules as to when the disease or injury is
attributable to the military service. It is seen that under Rule 173
disability pension would be computed only when disability has occurred
due to wound, injury or disease which is attributable to military
service or existed before or arose during military service and has been
E and remains aggravated during the military service. If these conditions
are satisfied, necessarily the incumbent is entitled to the disability
pension. This is made ample clear from clause (a) to (d) of para 7
which contemphtes that in respect of a disease the Rules enumerated
thereunder required to be observed. Clause (c) provides that if ::
disease is accepted as having arisen in service, it must also be ·~·

F
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. Unless these
conditions satisfied, it cannot be said that the sustenance of injury
per se is on account of military service. In view of the report of the
G Medical Board of Doctors, it is not due to military service. The
conclusion may not have been satisfactorily reached that the injury
though sustained while in service, it was not on account of military
service. In each case, when a disability pension is sought for made
a claim, it must be affirmatively established, as a fact, as to whether
the injury sustained was due to military service or was aggravated
H
U.0.1. v. KESHARSINGH[PASAYAT,J.] 415
which contributed to invalidation for the military service". A
9. The position was again re-iterated in Union ofIndia and Ors. v. Dhir
Singh China, Colonel (Retd.), [2003] 2 SCC 382. In para 7 it was observed
as follows:

"7. That leaves for consideration Regulation 53. The said Regulation
B
provides that on an officer being compulsorily retired on account of
~ .. age or on completion of tenure, if suffering on retirement from a
-... disabili!y attributable to or aggravated by military service and recorded
by service medical authority, he may be granted, in addition to retiring
pension, a disability element as if he had been retired on account of
disability. It is not in dispute that the respondent was compulsorily c
retired on attaining the age of superannuation. The question, therefore,
which arises for consideration is whether he was suffering, on
retirement, from a disability attributable to or aggravated by military
service and recorded by service medical authority. We have already
referred to the opinion of the Medical Board which found that the two
disabilities from which the respondent was suffering were not D
• j attributable to or aggravated by military service. Clearly therefore, the
opinion of the Medical Board ruled out the applicability of Regulation
53 to the case of the respondent. The diseases from which he was
suffering were not found to be attributable to or aggravated by military
service, and were in the nature of constitutional diseases. Such being
the opinion of the .Medical Board, in our view the respondent can E
derive no benefit from Regulation 53. The opinion of the Medical
Board has not been assailed in this proceeding and, therefore, must
be accepted."
.., 10. The above position was highlighted in Controller of Defence
Accounts (Pension) and Ors. v. S. Balachandran Nair, [2005] 13 SCC 128). F
11. In view of the legal position referred to above and the fact that the
Medical Board's opinion was clearly to the effect 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 G
°'' the facts and circumstances of the case, payment already made to the
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.

RP. Appeal allowed.
H