Supreme Court of India
OM PRAKASH SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2010 INSC 410
- Decided
- 20 July 2010
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- DALVEER BHANDARI
Holding
The Medical Board’s expert opinion that the disease is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service is entitled to decisive weight, and therefore the appellant is not entitled to disability pension.
Summary
The appellant, a former sepoy of the Territorial Army, was invalided out on a medical board's finding that his unspecified psychosis was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. He claimed entitlement to a disability pension under Regulation 173 of the Army Pension Regulations, arguing that the Entitlement Rules should be applied and that the medical board's opinion was merely recommendatory. The Supreme Court examined the statutory framework, including Regulation 173, Appendix‑II, Regulation 423, and the Entitlement Rules, and considered prior case law on the weight of medical board opinions. It held that the medical board, as an expert body, must be given due weight and its unanimous opinion controls the determination of attributability. Consequently, the appellant was not entitled to the disability pension, though any amount already paid could not be recovered. The appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to disability pension under Regulation 173 when the Medical Board finds the disease not attributable to or aggravated by military service.
- Whether the opinion of the Medical Board is binding or merely recommendatory in the context of the Entitlement Rules.
- Whether the Entitlement Rules (Rules 5, 9, 14, 15) must override the Medical Board’s assessment.
- Whether any pension amount already paid can be recovered from the appellant.
Subjects
disability pensionmilitary servicemedical boardattributabilityRegulation 173Entitlement Rulesservice lawarmypsychosisappeal dismissed
Judgment
[2010] 8 S.C.R. 490
A OM PRAKASH SINGH
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5655 of 2010)
JULY 20, 2010
B
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.]
Pension Regulations for the Army 1961 - Part I -
Regulation 173
c
Disability Pension- Recommendation of Medical Board
that the sepoy-appellant was suffering from disease not
attributable to nor aggravated by the military service - Sepoy
invalided from service - Entitlement to disability pension -
0 Held: Not entitled - Medical Board being an expert body, its
opinion is entitled to be given due weight and value - Service
law - Military service.
The question which arose for consideration in the
instant appeal was whether the appellant, who was
E invalided out from service on the recommendation of the
Medical Board, which assessed the appellant's disability
as not attributable to nor aggravated by the military
service, was entitled to the disability pension.
F Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The Medical Board is an expert body and they
take into consideration all relevant factors and essential
practice before arriving at any opinion and its opinion is
entitled to be given due weight, merit credence and value.
G In the instant case, the Medical Board had given
unanimous opinion that the disease of the appellant was
neither attr:outable to nor aggravated by the military
service. The findings of the Medical Board was accepted
by the High Court. Thus, no interference is called for. The
H appellant is not entitled!.9:D the disability pension.
OM PRAKASH SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 491
However, in case some amount has ever been paid to the,, A
appellant towards the disability pension, the sa"'e; may
not be recovered ftom him. [Paras 20, 21) [503-F~H; 504~
A]
Union of India & Others v. Ba/jit Singh (1996) 11 SCC
315; Union of India & Others v. Dhir Singh China, Colonel
8
(Retd.) (2003) 2 SCC 382; Union of India & Others v. Keshar
Singh (2007) 12 sec 675; relied on:
Ex-Sepoy Gopal Singh Dadwal v. Union of India & Others
(2007) 1 SLR 616; Ex-Cfn Sugna Ram Ranoliya v. Union of c
India & Others (2006) DLT" 544 (DB), referred to.
Case Law· Reference::
(2007) 1 SLR 616 referred. to Para 5
(2006) DLT 544.(DB). referred to Para.5 D
(1996) 11 sec 315 relied on Para 16
(2003) 2 sec 382. relied on Para 17'
(2007) 12 sec 675 relied on Para 18 E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
5655 of 2010.
From the Judgment & Order dated 27.03.2009 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 7834 of F
2009.
S.M. Dalal (for· Rameshwar Prasad Goyal) for the
Appellant.
Harin Raval, ASG, Vipul Maheshwari, Anil Katiyar, Anirudh G
Sharma for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. Leave granted.
H
492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 8 S.C.R.
A 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
dated 27.3.2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7834 of 2009.
3. The short question involved in this appeal pertains to
B the controversy whether the appellant is entitled to disability
pension?
4. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the matter
are recapitulated as under:
c The appellant was enrolled in the Territorial Army on
28.9.1975 as a Sepoy. At the time of joining service the
appellant was put through the medical test and was found
medically fit. According to the appellant, while serving in the
Army, he had contacted the disease known as "Unspecified
D Psychosis" on 26.6.1985, which is a psychiatric disorder. The
appellant was treated in the Army Hospital at Delhi Cantt. On
the recommendations of the Medical Board which assessed
the appellant's disability as 40%, he was invalided out from the
service. According to the Medical Board the disease of the
E appellant was neither attributable to nor aggravated by the
military service.
5. The claim of the appellant for grant of disability pension
was rejected by the competent authority. The appellant filed a
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 838 of 2008 in the High Court of Delhi.
F There was a similar matter pending with the High Court and
the High Court by a common order dated 30.4.2008 directed
the respondents to hold the Appeal Medical Boasrd with further
direction that the parameters laid down by the High Court in
the cases of Ex-Sepoy Gopal Singh Dadwal v. Union of India
G & Others (2007) 1 SLR 616 and Ex-Cfn Sugna Ram Ranoliya
v. Union of India & Others 132 (2006) DLT 544 (DB) be taken
into consider'.ltion.
6. The Appeal Medical Board opined that the disease of
H the appellant was neither attributable to nor aggravated by the
OM PRAKASH SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 493
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
military service because it was contracted in peace area. A
Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed Writ Petition (Civil) No.
7834 of 2009 which was dismissed by the High Court. Hence,
the present appeal by special leave.
7. We deem it appropriate to set out the relevant part of B
the opinion of the Medical Board. The same is as under:
"PART V
OPINION OF THE MEDICAL BOARD
Individual's Relationship of the Disability with Service conditions C
or otherwise
Disability Attributable Aggravated Not Reason/
to service by service connected cause/
(Y/N) (Y/N) with specific
service condition D
(Y/N) and period
in service
UNSPECIFIED No No Yes .
PSYCHOSIS
E
* As per medical consensus, unspecified psychosis,
like schizophrenia is caused by interaction of
multiple genetic vulnerabilities coupled with
environmental, biological, psychological and
psychosocial stressors during early childhood F
development or structural and neuro-chemical
·damage to the brain in infancy manifesting in adult
life as psychosis, hence it cannot be considered as
attributable to military service. However, despite
being a constitutional psychiatric disease benefit of G
doubt is given to an individual on possibility of
stress and strain of service in war like situations,
threat to life by enemy action in CIOPs or extreme
environmental conditions of prolonged field/high
altitude service, hastening the onset or aggravating H
494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 8 S.C.R.
A it (as specified in Annexure I to Encirclement Rules
- Classification of Diseases). However, no such
stress/strain of military service as defined in Para
54 of Chapter VI of Guide to medical officers
(military Pensions) 2002, which is considered
B stressful enough to hasten onset or aggravate the
invaliding disease (ID), is evident in this instant case
as individual did not serve in any field/CIOPs/High
altitude areas or extreme environmental conditions
and served only in peace stations (Cannanore and
c Delhi). In view of the above, as per the principles
of military medicine, invaliding disease (ID) is
considered neither attributable to nor aggravated by
military service
Sd/- Sd/-
D
Col. A.T. Kalghargi Brig.V.K. Kataria
Director (Pension) Dy. DGAFMS(Pens)
Dir AFMS (Pension) Office of DGAFMS
Office of DGAFMS Min. of Defence
E Min. of Defence, New Delhi New Delhi.
Sd/-
NEATU NARANG
Lt. Col. AMC
F Classified Spl (Psychiatry)
Base Hospital Delhi Cantt."
8. The appellant asserted that the entitlement to the
disability pension flows from Regulation 173 of the Pension
G Regulations for the Army 1961 - Part I (hereinafter referred to
as the Regulation). He further asserted that the High Court fell
in grave error of law in not considering this mandatory provision.
The relevant Regulation 173 of the Regulation reads as under:
"173. Unless otherwise specifically provided a
H
OM PRAKASH SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 495
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
disability pension consisting of service element and A
disability element may be granted to an individual who is
invalided out of service on account of a disability which is
attributable to or aggravated by military service in non-
battle casualty and is assessed at 20 percent or over.
B
The question whether a disability is attributable to or
aggravated by military service shall be determined under
the rules in Appendix-II."
9. According to the appellant, it is clear from the above-
said Regulation that two conditions decide the entitlement to C
disability pension. The first co!'ldition is that he should be
invalided out of service on account of disability which is
attributable to or aggravated by military service. The second
condition is that the disability should be assessed at 20% or
more. The assessment of percentage of disability is in the D
domain of the medical board which examines the physical
conditions of the concerned official. In deciding the percentage
of disability the medical board is guided by the Medical
Regulations.
E
10. The appellant also submitted that whether a disability
is attributable to or aggravated by the military service, has to
be determined under the Entitlement Rules for Casualty
Pensionary Awards 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the
"Entitlement Rules"). According to the appellant, the opinion of
the medical board in respect of attributability does not get
F
supremacy and it is to be treated only of recommendatory
nature. He submitted that the Entitlement Rules have to be
applied to the facts and circumstances of each case to
determine the att-ributability of a disease.
G
11. The appellant submitted that the Entitlement Rules are
beneficial provisions and, therefore, to be interpreted liberally.
These rules are made with the object of granting disability
pension and not of denying it. He relied opon Rules 5, 9, 14 &
15 of the Entitlement Rules. The same are extracted as under: H
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 8 S.C.R.
A "Rule 5. The approach to the question of entitlement to
casualty pensionary awards and evaluation of disabilities
shall be based on the following:-
Prior to and During Service
B (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.
c (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.
Rule 9. Onus of Proof. The claimant shall not be called
D upon to prove the conditions of entitlement. He/she will
receive the benefit of any reasonable doubt. This benefit
will be given more liberally to the claimant in field/afloat
service cases.
E Rule 14. 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
F
disease but influenced the subsequent
course of the disease will fall fJr acceptance
on the basis of aggravation.
(b) A disease which has led to an individual's
G 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
H stated, that the disease could not have been
OM PRAKASH SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 497
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
detected on medical examination prior to A
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 -8
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.
Rule 15. The onset -and progress of some diseases are C
affected by environmental factors related to service
conditions, dietary compulsions, exposure to noise,
physical and mental stress and strain. Diseases due fo
infection arising in service will merit entitlement of
attributability. Nevertheless, attention must be given to the D
possibility of pre-service history of such condition which,
if proved, could rule out entitlement of attributability but
would require cpnsideration regarding aggravation. For
clinical discretion of common diseases reference shall be
made to the Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pension) E
1980, as amended from time to time. The classification
of diseases affected by environmental factors in service
is given in Annexure Ill to these rules."
12. According to the appellant, the High Court fell in grave
F
error in not considering the above stated rules. The rules are
statutory in character and, therefore, were mandatorily required
to be considered in deciding the attributability aspect. The
appellant submitted that since none of the above stated rules
or regulation were considered by the High Court, the impugned
judgment and order of the High Court is required to be set G
aside.
13. The appellant further submitted that at the time of
entering into the service, on both occasions, he was found
H
498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 8 S.C.R.
A medically fit in all respects. Neither the appellant had any past
psychiatric history prior to 26 .6.1985 nor his family had any
background of psychiatric history. Thus the invaliding disease
arose during service and did not exist before joining the army
service. The appellant submitted that his case is covered by
B Rules 5 and 14(b) of the Entitlement Rules. According to him,
the High Court was wrong in not giving the benefit of Rule 15
of the Entitlement Rules.
14. The question whether a disability is attributable to or
aggravated by military service shall be determined under the
C Rules in Appendix II. Relevant portion in Appendix II reads as
follows:
"2. Disablement or death shall be accepted as due to
military service provided it is certified that-
D
(a) the disablement is due to wound, injury or disease
which-
(1) is attributable to military service; or
E (ii) existed before or arose during military
service and has been and remains
aggravated thereby;
(b) the death was due to or hastened by-
F (1) a wound, injury or disease which was
attributable to military service; or
(i1) the aggravation by military service of a
wound, injury or disease which existed before
G or arose during military service.
Note.- The rule also covers cases of death after
discharge/invaliding from service.
3. There must be a causal connection between
H
. .
OM PRAKASH SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 499
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
disablement or death and military service for attributability A
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 of reasonable doubt will be given to the
B
claimant. This benefit will be given more liberally to the
claimant in field service case."
15. Regulation 423 deals with "Attributability to service" and
reads as under:
c
"423. Attributability to service.-(a) For the purpose of
determining whether the cause of a disability or death is·
or is not 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 0
under normal peace conditions. It is, however, essential to
establish whether ·the disability or death bore a causal
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
E
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 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 F
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 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 G
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
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 8 S.C.R.
A service/active service areas.
(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
B
self-inflicted or due to an individual's own serious
negligence or misconduct. the Board will also comment
how far the disability resulted from self-infliction, negligence
or misconduct.
c (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 contributed to the onset of the
D 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
E 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 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
F examination prior to acceptance for service, the disease
will not be deemed to have arisen during service.
(d) The question, whether a disability or death is
attributable to or aggravated by service or not, will be
decided as regards its medical aspects by a Medical
G 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
Board/Medical Officer, insofar as it relates to the actual
cause of the disability or death and the circumstances in
H which it originated will be regarded as final. The question
OM PRAKASH SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 501
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
whether the cause and the attendant circumstances can A
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 Medical Board in the case of an invalid, B
the CO Unit will furnish a report on:
(i) AFMSF 81 in all cases other than those due to injuries.
(ii) IAFY-2006 in all cases of injuries other than battle
injuries. c
(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
0
stations where it is 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 a Medical Board form and countersigned by
the ADMS (Amiy)/DMS (Navy)/DMS (Air)."
E
16. In Union of India & Others v. Baljit Singh (1996) 11
SCC 315 this Court observed as under:
"6 . ... It is seen that various criteria have been prescribed
in the guidelines under the Regulations as to when the
F
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 a
wound, injury or disease which is attributable to military
service or existed before or arose during military service G
and has been and remains aggravated during the military
service. If these conditions are satisfied, necessarily the
incumbent is entitled to the disability pension. This is made
amply clear from Clauses (a) to (d) of Para 7 which
contemplates that in respect of a disease the Rules
H
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 8 S.C.R.
A enumerated thereunder require to be observed. Clause (c)
provides that 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. Unless these
conditions are 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 Medical Board of doctors, it is
not due to military service. The conclusion may not have
·c 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 and
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 which contributed to invalidation
D
for the military service."
17. A similar question came up for adjudication in the case
of Union of India & Others v. Dhir Singh China, Colonel
(Retd:) (2003) 2 sec 382, wherein this Court in para 7 of the
E said judgment observed as under:
"7. That leaves for consideration Regulation 53. The
said Regulation provides that on an officer being
compulsorily retired on account of age or on completion
F of tenure, if suffering on retirement from a disability
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 retired on attaining
G
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
H
OM PRAKASH SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 503
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
Medical Board which found that the two disabilities from A
which the respondent was suffering were not 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 B
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 derive no benefit from Regulation 53. The opinion of
the Medical Board has not1 been assailed in this C
proceeding and, therefore, must be accepted."
18. A similar controversy came up before this Court in
Union of India & Others v. Keshar Singh (2007) 12 SCC 675,
in which this Court relied upon the Medical Board's 1opinion to
the effect that the illness suffered by the respond¢'nt was not D
attributable to military service.
19. In the instant case, the records reveal that, in the opinion
of the Medical Board, the condition of the appellant cannot be
said to have triggered on account of the military service. In the E
opinion of the Medical Board, the disease was not at all
attributable to the military service.
20. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at
length. We are clearly of the view that the Medical Board is an
expert body and they take into consideration all relevant factors F
and .essential practice before arriving at any opinion and its
opinion is entitled to be given due weight, merit credence and
value.
21. In the instant case, the Medical Board has given G
unanimous opinion that the disease of the appellant was
neither attributable to nor aggravated by the military service. The
findings of the Medical Board has been accepted by the
Division Bench of the High Court. Thus, in our considered
H
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 8 S.C.R.
A opinion, no interference is called for. The appeliant is not entitled
to the disability pension. However, in case some amount has
ever been paid to the appellant towards the disability pension,
the same may not be recovered from him.
22. The appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly
8 dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.
D.G. Appeal dismissed.
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