UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusTALWINDER SINGH

                     [2012] 5 S.C.R. 437


                  UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                         A
                               v.
                      TALWINDER SINGH
               (Civil Appeal No. 3686 of 2012)

                       APRIL 20, 2012
                                                                B
 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR,
                      JJ.]

       Pension Regulations of the Army, 1961, Part I -
 Paragraph 179 - Disability pension - Entitlement to - C
 Respondent enrolled in Army, suffered from injury at his
 home when on annual leave - Respondent operated for his
 left eye and discharged and placed in low medical category
 BEE (permanent) - Claim of respondent for disability pension
 - Opinion of the Medical Board that disability was 30% for life D
 but the said disability was neither attributable to, nor
 aggravated by medical service - Rejection of the said claim
 by the Competent Authority as a/so the trial court and first
 appellate court - However, claim allowed by the High Court
- On appeal, held: In case the injury suffered by military E
personnel is attributable to or aggravated by military service
after discharge, he becomes entitled for disability pension -
Person claiming disability pension must establish that the
injury suffered by him bears a causal connection with military
service - Opinion of the Medical Board which is an expert F
body should be given primacy in deciding cases of disability
pension and the court should not grant such pension brushing
aside the opinion of the Medical Board - It must be given due
weight, value and credence - On facts, the injury suffered by
the respondent could not be attributable to or aggravated by
the military service, thus, he is not entitled for disability G
pension - Order passed by the High Court set aside and that
of the trial court and the first appellate court restored.


                             437                               H
    438     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012) 5 S.C.R.


A      Union of India and Anr. v. Baljit Singh (1996) 11 SCC
  315: 1996 ( 7) Suppl. SCR 626; Union of India & Ors. v. Dhir
  Singh China, Colonel (Retd.}, (2003) 2 SCC 382: 2003 (1)
  SCR 779; Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) and Ors.
  v. S. Balachandran Nair AIR 2005 SC 4391; Union of India
B and Ors. v. Keshar Singh (2007) 12 SCC 675: 2007 (5 ) SCR
  408; Union of India and Ors. v. Surinder Singh Rathore (2008)
  5 SCC 747: 2008 (4) SCR 909; Union of India and Ors. v.
  Jujhar Singh AIR 2011 SC 2598; Secretary, Ministry of
  Defence and Ors. v. Ajit Singh (2009) 7 SCC 328: 2009 (8 )
c SCR 934 - relied on.
       The Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall v.
  Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and Ors. AIR 2010 SC
  1285; The University of Mysore v. G.D. Govinda Rao and Anr.
  AIR 1965 SC 491; Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Ors.
D v. A. V. Damodaran (dead) through L.Rs. and Ors. (2009) 9
  SCC 140: 2009 (13) SCR 416; Regional Director, ES/
  Corporation and Anr. v. Francis De Costa and Anr. AIR 1997
  SC 432 - referred to.

E                       Case Law Reference:
          1996 (7) Suppl. SCR 626 Relied on            Para 7
          2003 (1) SCR 779         Relied on           Para 7
          AIR 2005 SC 4391         Relied on           Para 7
F
          2007 (5 ) SCR 408        Relied on           Para 7
          2008 (4) SCR 909         Relied on           Para 7
          AIR 2010 SC 1285         Referred to         Para 8
G         AIR 1965 SC 491          Referred to         Para 8
          AIR 2011 SC 2598         Relied on           Para 9
          2009 (13) SCR 416        Referred to         Para 9

H
     UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. TALWINDER SINGH                439


      AIR 1997 SC 432             Referred to         Para 9       A

      2009 (8) SCR 934            Relied on           Para 10

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
 3686 of 2012.
                                                                   B
     From the Judgment & Order dated 11.11.2009 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RS.A. No. 599
of 2009.

    H.P. Rawal, ASG, Shalini Kumar, R. Bala, B.V. Bairam           C
Das, Anil Katiyar for the the Appellant.

     Vivek Gupta, Satyendra Kumar for the Respondent.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

                          ORDER
                                                                   D

     1. Leave granted.

     The present appeal has been filed against the judgment
and order dated 11.11.2009 passed by the High Court of             E
Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No.599 of 2009 by
which the High Court has reversed the judgment and order of
the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and granted
the relief of disability pension to the respondent.

      2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are    F
that the respondent was enrolled in the Infantry (Sikh Regiment)
on 23.5.1987. He proceeded on annual leave on 31.3.1990 for
a period of two months to his home town. During his leave
period, the respondent suffered injuries being hit by a small
wooden piece "Gulli" in the play of children and thus, his left    G
eye was seriously damaged. He was admitted to Command
Hospital, Chandimandir and remained there from 1.4.1990 to
25.4.1990. The respondent was operated upon twice and,
subsequently, was discharged giving him sick leave from
26.4.1990 to 6.6.1990 and was placed in low medical category       H
   440      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A 'BEE' (permanent).

       3. The investigation/enquiry was conducted by Army
  Authorities and the court of inquiry vide order dated 13.7.1990
  came to the conclusion that injuries sustained by the
8 respondent were not attributable to military service. The
  respondent was kept in sheltered appointment upto 31.5.2003
  for giving him an opportunity to complete his terms of
  engagement. The respondent was examined by the Release
  Medical Board (RMB) on 14.2.2003 for assessment of degree
C and attributability/aggravation factors of the disability
  'Perforating Injury Left Eye' and it came to the conclusion that
  disability was 30% for life, however, the Board further declared
  that the said disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated
  by military service. In view thereof, the claim of the respondent
  for disability pension was rejected by the competent authority
D vide order dated 7.8.2003.

       4. The respondent filed Suit No.312 of 2004 before Civil
  Judge (Senior Division) Sangrur, Punjab, seeking the relief of
  disability pension which was dismissed vide judgment and
E decree dated 25.9.2006. Aggrieved, respondent preferred Civil
  Appeal No.150 of 2006 which was dismissed by the learned
  Additional District Judge, Sangrur vide judgment and decree
  dated 2.9.2008. Respondent, not being satisfied, preferred
  RSA No.599 of 2009 before the High Court of Punjab &
F Haryana challenging the aforesaid judgments and decree.
  Learned Single Judge reversed the concurrent finding of facts
  by two courts below and allowed the appeal decreeing the suit
  issuing direction to the appellants/ defendants to release
  payment of disability pension alongwith 8% interest per annum
G from 31.5.2003, within a period of 3 months.

         Hence, this appeal.

       5. Shri H.P. Raval, learned ASG appearing on behalf of
  Union of India, has submitted that the High Court committed an
H error allowing the appeal and reversing the judgments and
    UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. TALWINDER SINGH                  441


decree of the courts below as the case of the respondent could       A
not fall within the provisions of paragraph 179 of the Pension
Regulations of the Army, 1961, Part-I, (herein after called the
'Regulations') as well as the findings and opinion of the Medical
Board, a finding that the injury suffered by the respondent could
neither be attributable to, nor could be aggravated by the           B
military service. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
The judgment and decree of the High Court is liable to be set
aside.

     6. On the contrary, Shri Vivek Gupta, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent, has contended that the High            C
Court has decided the case in correct perspective and correctly
interpreted the statutory provisions and therefore, no
interference is required. The appeal lacks merit and is liable
to be dismissed.
                                                                     D
     7. We have considered the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

     The sole question involved in this appeal is that if a person
enrolled in Army suffers from injury at his home when on leave,
whether such injury can be held to be attributable to or             E
aggravated by the military service.

     The issue involved herein is no more res integra. It is not
in dispute that in case the injury suffered by military personnel
is attributable to or aggravated by military service after           F
discharge, he becomes entitled for disability pension. It is also
a settled legal proposition that opinion of the Medical Board
should be given primacy in deciding cases of disability pension
and the court should not grant such pension brushing aside the
opinion of the Medical Board.                                        G
     (See: Union of India & Anr. v. Baljit Singh, (1996) 11 SCC
315; Union of India & Ors. v. Dhir Singh China, Colonel
(Retd.), (2003) 2 SCC 382; Controller of Defence Accounts
(Pension) & Ors. v. S. Balachandran Nair, AIR 2005 SC 4391;
                                                                     H
    442     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A   Union of India & Ors. v. Keshar Singh, (2007) 12 SCC 675;
    and Union of India & Ors. v. Surinder Singh Rathore, (2008)
    5 sec 747).

       8. In The Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall v.
  Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 1285,
8 this Court while placing reliance upon a large number of earlier
  judgments including Constitution Bench judgment in The
  University of Mysore v. G.D. Govinda Rao & Anr., AIR 1965
  SC 491, held that ordinarily, the court should not interfere with
  the order based on opinion of experts on the subject. It would
C be safe for the courts to leave the decision to experts who are
  more familiar with the problems they face than the courts
   generally can be.

       9. This Court recently decided an identical case in Union
o of India & Ors. v. Jujhar Singh, AIR 2011 SC 2598, and after
  reconsidering a large number of earlier judgments including
  Secretary, Ministry of Defence & Ors. v. A. V. Damodaran
  (dead) through L.Rs. & Ors., (2009) 9 SCC 140; Baljit Singh's
  (supra); Regional Director, ES/ Corporation & Anr. v. Francis
E De Costa & Anr., AIR 1997 SC 432, came to the conclusion
  that in view of Regulation 179, a discharged person can be
  granted disability pension only if the disability is attributable to
  or aggravated by military service and such a finding has been
  recorded by Service Medical Authorities. In case the Medical
F Authorities records the specific finding to the effect that
  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 specialised authority
  composed of expert medical doctors and it is a final authority
  to give opinion regarding attributability and aggravation of the
G 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 resulting in an
  injury to the person and the normal expected standard of duties
H
       UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. TALWINDER SINGH                 443


and way of life expected from such person. As the military             A
personnel sustained disability when he was on an annual leave
that too at his home town in a road accident, it could not be
held that the injuries could be attributable to or aggravated by
military service. Such a person would not be entitled to disability
pension.                                                               B
     10. This view stands fully fortified by the earlier judgment
of this Court in Secretary, Ministry of Defence & Ors. v. Ajit
Singh, (2009) 7 sec 328.

     11. The instant case is squarely covered by the ratio of the      C
aforesaid judgment in Jujhar Singh (supra).

      We are of the view that the opinion of the Medical Board
which is an expert body must be given due weight, value and
credence. Person claiming disability pension must establish            D
that the injury suffered by him bears a causal connection with
military service. In the instant case, as the injury suffered by the
respondent could not be attributable to or aggravated by the
military service he is not entitled for disability pension.

     12. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The              E
judgment and order of the High Court dated 11.11.2009 passed
in R.S.A. No. 599 of 2009 is set aside and the judgment and
order of the Trial Court and that of First Appellate Court are
restored. No order as to costs.
                                                                       F
N.J.                                            Appeal allowed.