Holding

The Medical Board’s opinion that the officer’s schizophrenia was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service is conclusive, so the legal representatives are not entitled to disability pension (though any amount already paid cannot be recovered).

Summary

The case concerned an Army officer who was diagnosed with schizophrenia and was invalided out in medical category "EEE" with 60% disability. The Medical Board at the Command Hospital opined that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. The officer’s legal representatives filed a writ petition seeking disability pension under the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, and the High Court granted it, ignoring the Medical Board’s report. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the Medical Board is an expert body whose opinion must be given decisive weight; since it found no service connection, the officer is not entitled to disability pension. However, any pension already paid cannot be recovered from the legal representatives. The appeal was allowed, overturning the High Court’s order.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court was justified in granting disability pension despite the Medical Board’s finding that the disability was not attributable to military service.
Whether the officer is entitled to disability pension under Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961.

Legislation cited

Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961s. Regulation 173, s. Regulation 423

Subjects

disability pensionmilitary servicemedical boardschizophreniapension regulationsattributabilityservice law

Judgment

(2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 416

A SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE & OTHERS
v.
DAMODARAN A.V. (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 5678 of 2009)

AUGUST 20, 2009
B
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]

Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 - Regulations ~
C 173 and 423 - Disability pension - Entitlement to - Army
officer diagnosed to be suffering from "Schizophrenia" -
Medical Board opined that disability of the officer was neither
attributable nor aggravated by Military service nor connected
to the service, but was constitutional in nature and accordingly
D recommended him to be invalided out of service in medical
category "EEE" (Psychological) - ·Writ petition by LRs of the
~-
officer praying for grant of disability pension - High Court
ignored report of Medical Board and granted disability
pension - Propriety of - Held: Not proper - Medical Board is
E an expert body and its opinion is entitled to be given due
weight, value and credence - On facts, the condition of
military service did not trigger the onset of "schizophrenia" -
Legal representatives of concerned officer therefore not
entitled to disability pension - However if any amount towards
F such disability pension is already paid, same may not be
recovered from the LRs - Service Law - Military service -
Pension.

Respondent no.1, an Army officer with five years
service, was diagnosed to be suffering from
G "Schizophrenia". The Medical Board at the Command
Hospital opined that the disability of respondent no.1 was
neither attributable nor aggravated by the Military service ~'i .
nor connected to the service, but was constitutional in
nature and accordingly recommended him to be invalided
H 416
SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE v. 417
DAMODARAN A.V. (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.
out of service in medical category "EEE" (Psychological). A

The legal representatives of respondent no.1 filed writ
petition before High Court praying for grant of disability
pension. The petition was allowed and disability pension
granted under the provisions contained in Pensions B
Regulations for the Army, 1961 and such other enabling
provisions.

- J._ The question which arose for consideration in the
present appeal was whether the High Court was justified
in ignoring the report of the Medical Board and granting c
disability pension.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

; HELD (Per Dalveer Bhandari, J.):
D
1.1. The Medical Board is an expert body and its
-"
opinion is entitted to be given due weight, value and
credence. In the instant case, the Medical Board has
clearly opined that the disability of respondent no.1 was
neither attributable nor aggravated by the military service. E
[Para 17] [429-F-G]

1.2. The High Court did not consider this case in
proper prospective and in the light of the judgments of
"'
... the Supreme Court. The legal representatives of
F
respondent no.1 are not entitled to the disability pension.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in
case some amount has been paid to them towards
disability pension, the same may not be recovered from
them. [Para 18] [429-G-H; 430-A]
G
Union of India v. Baljit Singh (1996) 11 SCC 315; Union

- ·-¥'. of India & Others v. Dhir Singh China, Colonel (Retd.) (2003)
2 SCC 382 and Union of India & Others v. Keshar Singh
(2007) 12 sec 675, relied on.
H

--
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R

A Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) & Others v. S.
Balachandran Nair (2005) 13 SCC 128, referred to.

HELD [Per Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.] [Concurring]

1.1. The respondent was posted to 1st Engineer
B Regiment at Allahabad, which is neither a sensitive
border area nor a difficult terrain/high altitude region. The
respondent was not posted at an isolated location. He
had access to the society there. A person is, under law, ~-
entitled to the disability pension provided his disability is
c certified by the appropriate medical authority as being
attributable to or aggravated by or connected with the
military service. [Para 12] [434-H; 435-A]

1.2. The record reveals that in the opinion of the
D Medical Board no physical contributory factor was .\

elicited for the psychotic breakdown of the respondent.
)..
Thus, the condition of military service cannot be said to
have triggered the onset of schizophrenia I
in the
respondent. However, the possibility of the development
of schizophrenia in the respondent as a result of family
E
stress and pressure (which ,is regarded as a factor
triggering the onset of this mental condition in some
individuals) cannot be ruled out totally. The respondent
did not assail the validity of the finding or the opinion of
the Medical Board. On the contrary, the respondent has .., Jl

F placed reliance on the findings of the Board on the I

aspect of the extent of the respondent's disability being
60%. [Para 13] [435-B-D]

1.3. The opinion of the Medical Board ruled out the
G possibility of the disease of the respondent being
attributable to or aggravated by military service. That
being the position, the respondent cannot claim for -'y-.
payment of any disability pension. Another relevant ....
factor which is required to be noted that the report of the
H medical board is not under challenge. As has been held
SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE v. 419
DAMODARAN A.V. (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.
by this Court, such opinion of the medical board would A
have the primacy and therefore, it must be held that the
High Court was not justified in allowing the claim of the
respondent The legal representatives of the respondent
no.1 are not entitled to disabUity pens.ion but if any
amount towards such disability pension has already B
been paid, the same may not be recovered from the legal
representatives. [Paras 15 and 16] [435-G-H; 436-A-C]
-,J_ Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) & Others v. S.
Ba/achandran Nair AIR 2005 SC 4391 and Union of India v.
Baljit Singh (1996) 11 sec 315, relied on.
c
Case Law Reference:
Judgment of Dalveer Bhandari J.
;
(2005) 13 sec 12s referred to Para 11 D
Ji.. (1996) 11 sec 315 relied on Para 13
(2003) 2 sec 382 relied on Para 14
(2001) 12 sec 675 relied on Para 16 E
Judgment of Dr. Mukundakam Sharma J.
AIR 2005 SC 4391 relied on Para 10
• 1996 (11) sec 315 relied on Para 10
-I F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
5678 of 2009.
From the Judgment & Order datea 19.7.2007 of the High
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. No. 2038 of 2001.
G
Indra Jai Singh, ASG, Kiran Bhardwaj, B. Krishna Prasad
. "'(- for the Appellants .

- Jogy Scaria for the Respondents.
H
0

:..
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DALVEE~ BHANDARI, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dated 19.7.2007 delivered in Writ
g Appeal No. 2038 of 2001.

3. The short question that arises for consideration of this
Court is whether the High Court was justified in ignoring the .
report of the Medical Board in which it is clearly mentioned that --' ..
c disability of A.V. Damodaran was neither attributable nor
aggravated by the military service.

4. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the appeal
are as under: ·

D A.V. Damodaran was enrolled in the Indian Army as
Sapper in the Madras Engineers Group on 28.11.1979. After ~
completion of basic training he was posted to 1st Engineer
Regiment.

E 5. A.V. Damodaran was admitted to Ml Allahabad and
was diagnosed to be suffering from "Malaria" B.T." on
24.6.1984. He was discharged from the hospital on 30.6.1984
and was again admitted in the Air Force Hospital, Jhansi
because he was suffering from "Hallucination". A.V. ,.
Damodaran was transferred to the Command Hospital, r
F Lucknow for management by a psychiatrist on 5.7.1984. The -
disability of A.V. Damodaran was diagnosed as "Schizophrenia
(295)" in peace station in July 1984.

6. On 17.1.1985 the Medical Board recommended him to
G beinvalided out of service in medical category "EEE" with 60%
disability for a period of two years due to the· disease
"Schizophrenia (295)". The Medical Board had opined that the -'Y-.
disability of A.V. Damodaran was not attributable to the military · .....,
service nor has it been aggravated thereby and it is not
H connected with the service, as Schizophrenia is a constitutional
SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE v. DAMODARAN 421
A.V. (DEAD) THROUGH_ LRS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
... disease. The opinion of the Medical Board reads as under: A

"OPINION

This is a case of Schizophrenia in a young officer
with 5 yrs service with no disorder of through peruption,
behavior and irrational inconguity. He also exhibited B
impairment of judgment and might onset July 84. He has
- "'- been treated with neuroleptis, electroplexy and
psychotherapy. Response to therapy has been satisfactory.
There is no evidence of active present features of illness
at present. c
However, in view of early onset of the illness, a short
period of service and chances of relapse in future under
;
stress and strain of military service, he is considered unfit
J...
for further service. Recommended medical category EEE D
(Psychological).

He has been reviewed by the medical specialist and
no physical contributory factor elicited Jor his psychiatric
breakdown. In abetment assessed is 60% (sixty percent)
disability neither attributable nor aggravated by service. E
Longevity: Average 11.1.85. AFMSF 16281 along with
... related documents."
. 7. The legal representatives of respondent no. 1 herein
filed an Original Writ Petition before the High Court praying for F
grant of disability pension. By an order dated 20.12.2000 the
learned Single Judge has allowed the original petition and
declared that the individual was eligible to get disability pension
under the provisions contained in the Pension Regulations for
the Army, 1961 and such other enabling provisions. The G
Department filed a Writ Appeal before the High Court. By an
,._,
. ""- impugned order, the High Court has dismissed the said appeal
finding no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by
the learned Single Judge.

8. The main questions of law that arise for consideration H
422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A of this Court are as under:

(i) Whether the High Court is justified in upholding the
order passed by the learned Single Judge granting
disability pension to the respondents and
dismissing the Writ Appeal by the appellant?
B
(ii) Whether the respondents are entitled to the grant
of disability pension under the provisions as ~-
contained in Regulation 173 of the Pension
Regulations for the Army, 1961 and such other
c enabling provisions?

9. The appellant Union of India submitted- that:

(a) As per the medical opinion the respondent A.V.
Damodar:an was examined by the medical
D )..
specialist and no physical contributory fact~r
elicited for his psychiatric breakdown. In
disablement assessed is 60% (sixty percent)
disability neither attributable nor aggravated by
service.
E
(b) The respondent's personal history reveals that he
joined army in 1979 to secure a good job. He is ,..
unmarried and supporting his family. H~ is having _
no addiction to any intoxication. Field Service is Nil
r
F and Punishment is Nil.

(c) It is submitted that Discharge Certificate was
prepared and issued to the respondent by the
Commanding Officer of his parent Unit upon his
release from the service. Therefore, original
G discharge. certificate is not available with the --,.._.
Department. The copy of discharge certificate ......
presently available with the Department is one
which was forwarded by the respondent along with
his representation dated 18.3.1986 submitted by
H
SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE v. DAMODARAN 423
A.V. (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
him to the Department.· Hence, the authenticity of A
the discharge certificate cannot be relied upon and
taken into account for grant of disability pension. In
any event, in view of the Medical Board held on
17.1.1985, it is erroneous.
B
(d) In the present case, the Medical Board held on
17 .1. 1985 at Command . Hospital (Central
Command), Lucknow, consisting of specialized
Doctors had opined that the disability of the
respondent is neither attributable nor aggravated by
the Military service and it is not connected with the C
service, but it was constitutiona! in nature. The said
opinion is binding on all the concerns and is the only
document on the basis of which disability pension
can be granted or refused.
0
10. The appellant, aggrieved by the judgment of the
Division Bench of the High Court, preferred this appeal.
11. The appellant relied upon the judgment of this Court
in Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) & Others v. S. E
Balachandran Nair (2005) 13 SCC 128. In that case, a
reference made under Rule 173 of the Pension Regulations for
~ the Army has also been discussed. Rule 173 of the Pension
-1 Regulations for the Army reads as under:

"173. Primary conditions for the grant of disability F
pension.--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 anij is
assessed at 20 per cent or above. · G

The question whether a disability is attributable to or
aggravated by military service shall be determined under
rule in Appendix II.
Relevant portion in Appendix 11 reads as follows: H
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A · 2. Disab!ement 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--
B (i) is attributable to military service; or

(ii) existed before or arose during military service --\ ....
and has been and remains aggravated thereby;

(b) the death was due to or hastened by-
c I

(i) a wound, injury or disease which was attributable ~
t"
to military service, or
~
(ii) the aggravation by military service of a wound,
D injury or disease which existed before or arose
during military service.
>-
Note.--The rule also covers cases of death after
discharge/invaliding from service.

E 3. There must be a causal connection between
disablement or aeath and military service for attributability
or aggravation to be conceded.
•
4. In deciding on the issue of entitlement all the t
evidence, both direct and circumstantial, will be taken into
F
account and the benefit or reasonable doubt will be given
to the claimant. This benefit will be given more liberally to
the claimant in field service case.' "

12. Regulation 423 which deals with "Attributability to
G service" has also been discussed in S. Balachandran Nair's
case (supra), which reads as under: ---+--A
....
"423. Attributability to service.--(a) For the purpos_e of
determining whether the cause of a disability or death is
H or is not attributable to service, it is immaterial whether the
SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE v. DAMODARAN 425
AV. (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

+ cause giving rise to the disability or death occurred in an A
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 conditions. All evidence, both
direct and circumstantial, will be taken into account and B
benefit of reasonable doubt, if any, will be given to the
.... , individual. The evidence~ 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 c
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 sentence 'of course it is D
possible but not in th.e 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 determi'1ate conclusion one way or the other, then the
case would be one in which the benefit of doubt could be
E
given more liberally to the individual, :... cal?es occurring in
field service/active service areas.
J..
(b) The cause of a disability or death resulting from
'I
wound or injury, will be regarded as attributable to service
if the wound/injury was sustained during the actual F
performance of 'duty' in armed forces. In case of injuries
which were 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. G
~ ~
(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
H
426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A forces determined and contributed to the onset of the ~
disease. Cases, in which it is established that service
conditions did not determine or contribute to the onset of
~

the disease but influenced the subsequent course of the '

disease, will be regarded as aggravated by the service.
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 service in the armed forces. However, if ~·-
medical opinion holds, for reasons to be stated that the
c disease could not have been detected on medical
examination prior to acceptance for service, the disease
will not be deemed to have arisen during service.

(d) The question, whether a disability or death is
attributable to or aggravated by service or not, will be
D decided 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
Board/medical officer, insofar as it relates to the actual
E cause of the disability or death and the circumstances in
which iforiginated 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
y
•
pension sanctioning authority.
F
(e) To assist the medical officer who signs the death
certificate or the Medical Board in the case of an invalid,
the CO Unit will furnish a report on:

(i) AFMS F-81 in all cases other than those due to
G injuries.
--+.-.
(i) IAFY-2006 in all cases of injuries other than battle
injuries.

(f) In cases where award of disability pension or
H
SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE v. DAMODARAN 427
AV. (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

reassessment of disabilities is concerned, ~ Medical A
Board is always necessary and the certificate of a single
medical officer will not be accepted except in case of
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 B
furnished on a Medical Board form and countersigned by
the ADMS (Army)/DMS (Navy)/DMS (Air)."
-+- 13. The question regarding payment of disability pension
has also been dealt with by this Court in Union of India v. Baljit
Singh (1996) 11 SCC 315. In para 6 at page 316, this Court
c
observed as under:

"6 .... It is seen that various criteria have been prescribed
; in the guidelines under the Rules as to when the disease
or injury is attributable to the military service. It is seen that D
A.
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 and has been and
remains aggravated during the military service. If these E
conditions are satisfied, necessarily the incumbent is
entitled to the disability pension. This is made amply clear
J, from clauses (a) to (d) of para 7 which contemplates that
>/ in respect of a disease the Rules enumerated thereunder
required to be observed. Clause (c) provides that if a F
disease is accepted as having arisen in service, it must
also be established that the conditions of military service
determined or contributed to the onset of the disease and
that the conditions were due to the circumstances of duty
in military service. Unless these conditions are satisfied,
G
it cannot be said that the sustenance of injury p~r 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 been satisfactorily reached
that the injury though sustained while in service, it was not
H
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDl.) S.C.R.

A 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 for the military
B service."

14. This question again came up before this Court in Union
of India & Others v. Dhir Singh China, Colonel (Retd.) (2003)
~
2 SCC 382 and the Court in para 7 of the said judgment
observed as under:
c
"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 of tenure, if
suffering on retirement from a disability attributable to or
D 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 the age of
E 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 y
F which found that the two disabilities from 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
G
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 not been assailed in this
H
SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE v. DAMODARAN 429
A.V. (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.)

proceeding and, therefore, must be accepted." A

15. This Court in this case has clearly obseryed that the
High Court was not justified in ignoring the conclusions of the
Medical Board and directing payment of pension.

16. This Court in Union of India & Others v. Keshar Singh B
(2007) 12 sec 675 dealt with a case where the respondent a
,._" rifleman was discharged from Army on ground of his non-
suitability for continuance in Army as he was suffering from
Schizophrenia. Respondent's application for grant of disability
pension was rejected on the ground that the disability was not c
connected with the service. Single Judge ~as a Division
Bench had held that it was not mentioned a e time of entering

, to army service that the respondent suffered from
Schizophrenia and therefore it was attributable to army service.
This Court has held that if a disease is acc¢pted as having D
_..(
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 are due to the circumstances
of duty in military service. This court relied on Medical Board's
opinion to the effect that the illness suffered by the respondent E
was not attributable to military service. This court while setting
aside the judgments of the learned Single Judge and the
•y Division Bench held that the respondent was not entitled to
disability pension.

17. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I am
F
of the considered view that the Medical Board is an expert body
and its opinion is entitled to be given due weight, value and
credence. In the instant case, the Medical Board has clearly
opined that the disability of Late Shri AV. Damodaran was
neither attributable nor aggravated by the military service. G
'+- 18. In my considered view, both the learned Single Judge
and the Division Bench of the High Court have not considered
this case in proper prospective and in the light of the judgments
of this Court. The legal representatives of AV. Damodaran are H
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A not entitled to the disability pension. However, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, in case some amount has been paid
to the legal representatives of A.V. Damodaran towards
disability pension, the same may not be recovered from them.

19. The appeal is accordingly allowed leaving the parties
B
to bear their own costs1.

DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. I have had the
privilege and opportunity of going through the well considered ~--
and reasoned judgment of my learned brother Justice Dalveer
c Bhandari. While most respectfully agreeing with the conclusions
arrived at, I would like to add a few paragraphs recording my
own reasons on the issues that arise for consideration in this
case.

D 2. The facts leading to the filing of the Special Leave
Petition by the Ministry of Defence are already set out in the ).._
detailed judgment of my learned brother and therefore I do not
intend to reiterate the same and burden this judgment. In the
light of the facts stated therein, the issue that arises for our
consi~eration is as to whether in view of the opinion of the
E
Medical Board that the disability of A.V. Damodaran was not
attributable to the military service nor aggravated thereby and
that it is not connected with the service as "Schizophrenia" is
~
a constitutional disease could still be said and held to be
'f
attributable or aggravated by military service.
F
3. Schizophrenia is a term used to describe a mental
disorder characterized by abnormalities in the perception or
expression of reality, which is most commonly manifested as
auditory hallucinations, bizarre delusions, or disorganized
G speech and thinking with significant social or occupational
dysfunction. The medical studies have opined that there is no
known single cause responsible for Schizophrenia. However,
--+.
they have pointed towards likelihood of genetic, behavioural·
and environmental factors playing a role in the development of
H this mental health condition.
SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE v. DAMODARAN AV. 431
{DEAD) THROUGH LRS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.)

~
4. At this stage reference may be made to the provisions A
of para 173 of the Pension Regulations, which provides as
follows:-

"173. Unless otherwise specifically provided a disability
pension consisting of service element and disability
B
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 per cent or over.

The question whether a disability is attrib!Jtable to or c
aggravated by military service shall be determined under
the rules in Appendix II."

5. The question of attributability or aggravation is
determined under Appendix-II of Pension Regulations. In 1982, D
~ . a set of rules called "Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary
Awards 1982" were brought into force and after promulgation
of the said rules the question of attributability would have to be
decided and determined in accordance with the provisions of
the said Rules. A guideline is also framed which lays down the
E
mode and manner as also the guiding principles for determining
such cases have been set out therein. The aforesaid
;.
Entitlement Rules have been made effective w.e.f. January 1,
1982 and the aforesaid set of rules is required to be read in
~
conjunction with the Guide to Medical Officers (Military
Pensions) 1980. It is provided\ in the aforesaid Entitlement F
Rules read with the guidelines that invalidation from service is
a necessary pre-condition for grant of disability pension. In
paragraph 5 thereof a presumption is to be drawn for
determining the question of entitlement to such disability
pension when it provides as follows:- G
1-+-
"5. The approach to the question of entitlement to casualty
pensionary awards and evaluation of disabilities shall be
on the following presumptions:-
H
432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S~C.R.

A Prior to and during service

(a) A member is presumed to have been in sound physical
and m,_ental condition upon entering service except as _to
physical disabilities noted or recorded at the time of
entra~ce.
8
(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." ~-

c 6. Paragraph 6, on the other hand, provides· '
that
.
disablement or death shall be accepted as due to military
~ervice provided it is certified by appropriate medical authority
tha_t (a) the disablement is due to 18 wound, injury or disease
which is attributable to, rt1ilitary serJice, or existed before'. or
D arose during military service and has be~n ~ remains
aggravated thereby, or (b) the death of the personnel was due
)..
to or hastened by a wound, injury or disease which was
attributable to military service, or the aggravation by military
service of a wound, injury or disease which existed before or
arose during military service. Paragraph 8 provides that
E
attributability/aggravation would be. 'considered if causal
connection between death/disablement and 111ilitary service is
certified by an appropriate medical authority. Paragraph 11
deals with cases where an individual in receipt of disability ~

pension dies at home. y
F ,
7. The aforesaid provisions including that of the guidelines
call~d the Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pensions) 1980
and also the source of power, i.e., the provision of Section 173
of the Pension Regulations including other relevant provisions
G came to be considered by the Supreme Court. A conjoint
reading of the aforesaid provision$ along with the decisions
rendered by this Court makes it amply clear that the said --+·.
provisions and the decisions lay down the entire procedure,
guidelines and principles as to under what circumstances a
H
SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE v. DAMODARAN AV. 433
(DEAD) THROUGH LRS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

perspn could be said to be medically unfit and disabled and is A
to be boarded out from service and its attributability. The
decisions have also dealt with the manner and circumstances
under which the said person would be entitled to receive the
disability pension.
B
8. When an individual is found suffering from any disease
or has sustained injury, he is examined by the medical experts
who would not only examine him but also ascertain the nature
.... ~ of disease/injury and also record a decision as to whether the
said personnel is to be placed in a medlcal category which is
lower than 'AYE' (fit category) and whether temporarily or
c
permanently. They also give a medical assessment and advice
as to whether the individual is to be brought before the release/
invaiidating medical board. The said release/invaliding medical
board generally consists of three doctors and they, keeping in
view the clinical profile, the date and place of onset of invaliding D
-"" disease/disability and service conditions, draws a conclusion
as to whether the disease/injury has a causal connection with
military service or not. On the basis of the same they
recommend (a) attributability, or (b) aggravation, or (c) whether
connection with service. The second aspect which is also E
examined is !he extent to which the functional capacity of the
individual is impaired. The same is adjudged and an
J.
assessment is made of the percentage of the disability suffered
y by the said personnel which is recorded so that the case of the
personnel could be considered for grant of disability element F
of pension. Another aspect which is taken notice of at this stage
is the duration for which the disability is likely to continue. The
same is assessed/recommended in view of the disease being
capable of being improved. All the aforesaid aspects are
recorded and recommended in the form of AFMSF- 16. The G
Invalidating Medical Board .forms its opinion/recommendation
'+- on the basis of the medical report, injury report, court of enquiry

- proceedings, if any, charter of duties relating to peace or field
area and of course, the physical examination of the individual.
H
434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 9. The aforesaid provisions came to be interpreted by the
~
various decisions rendered by this Court in which it has been
consistently held that the opinion given by the doctors or the
medical board shall be given weightage and primacy in the
matter for ascertainment as to whether or not the injuries/illness
8 sustained was due to or was aggravated by the military service
which contributed to invalidation from the military service.

10. In the case of Controller of Defence Accounts
(Pension) and others v. S. Balachandran Nair reported in AIR --¥""'
2005 SC 4391 and the decision in Union of India and another
c v. Baljit Singh reported in 1996 (11) SCC 315 held that
Medical Board's opinion to the effect that illness. and disability
suffered by the respondent therein was not attributable to military
service cannot be substituted by the court in order to arrive at
a contrary finding. It was also held that where a medical board .\

D 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. The Supreme Court in the
case of Baljit Singh (supra) also dealt with the contention that
E the employee was posted at a sensitive border area and,
therefore, his illness was fully attributable to military service and
negatived the same.

11. In the backdrop of the aforesaid legal position made y
•
F clear by several decisions of this Court the facts of the present
case are required to be considered.

12. It is revealed from the personal and family history of
the respondent that on account of financial problems, the
respondent was forced to abandon his education and join the
G Army. The respondent was the sole bread earner of his family
and was burdened with the responsibility of maintaining his
--+ •
aged parents and three younger sisters. Further, it may be
pertinent to note here that the respondent was posted to 1st
Engineer Regiment at Allahabad, which is neither a sensitive
-
H border area nor a difficult terrain/high altitude region. The
SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE v. DAMODARAN AV. 435
(DEAD) THROUGH LRS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

respondent was not posted at an isolated location. He had A
-"'- access to the society there. A person is; under law, entitled to
the disability pension provided his disability is certified by the
appropriate medical authority as being attributable to or
aggravated by or connected with the military service.
B
13. In the present appeal, the record reveals that in the
opinion of the Medical Board no physical contributory factor was
elicited for the psychotic breakdown of the respondent. Thus,
~ -f
the condition of military service cannot be said to have triggered
the onset of schizophrenia in the respondent. However, the
possibility of the development of schizophrenia in the
c
respondent as a result of family stress and pressure (which is
regarded as a factor triggering the onset of this mental condition
in some individuals cannot be ruled out totally. The respondent
~ did not assail the validity of the finding or the opinion of the
Medical Board. On the contrary, the respondent has placed D
_,
-"- reliance on the findings of the Board on the aspect of the extent
of the respondent's disability being 60%.

14. Here is also a case where the Medical Board has given
its definite opinion that disease from which the petitioner was E
suffering was not attributable or aggravated by military service.
It was recorded by the Medical Board that the case is of
Schizophrenia in a young officer with five years service
•y manifested in disorder of thought, perception, behaviour and
emotional incongruity. Further opinion of the Board is that he F
had been reviewed by the medical specialist and no physical
contributory factor elicited for his psychiatric breakdown. In
disablement assessed is 60% (sixty percent) disability neither
attributable nor aggravated by service.

15. Clearly therefore, the opinion of the Medical Board G
ruled out the possibility of the disease of the respondent being
--·+--'
,. attributable to or aggravated by military service. That being the
position, the respondent cannot claim for payment of any
disability pension. Another relevant factor which is required to
be. noted that the report of the medical board is not under H
436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A challenge. As has been held by this Court, such opinion of the
medical board would have the primacy and therefore, it must
be held that the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench
of the High Court were not justified in allowing the claim of the
respondent.
B
16. I fully endorse and agree with the conclusion arrived
at by my esteemed brother Justice Dalveer Bhandari that the
legal representatives of the respondent AV. Damodaran are
not entitled to disability pension but if any amount towards such
C disability pension has already been paid, the same may not be
recovered from the legal representatives. I also hold that the
appeal stands allowed in terms of the aforesaid order.

B.B.B. Appeal allowed.