Holding

The respondent is not entitled to disability pension under Regulation 53 as the disabilities are constitutional and not service‑related, though any pension already paid shall not be recovered.

Summary

Colonel (Retd.) Dhir Singh Chhina retired with a 60% disability (angina pectoris 40% and glaucoma 20%). The Medical Board held that these ailments were constitutional and not attributable to or aggravated by military service. He claimed a disability pension under Regulation 53 of the Armed Forces Pension Regulations and under Rule 4 of the 1982 Entitlement Rules. The High Court Single Judge granted the pension, the Division Bench affirmed it under Regulation 53, and the President sanctioned payment pending the appeal. The Supreme Court held that, because the Medical Board’s opinion was unchallenged, the disabilities were not service‑related and therefore Regulation 53 did not apply; consequently the respondent was not entitled to disability pension, though any amount already paid could not be recovered. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the respondent is entitled to disability pension under Regulation 53 of the Armed Forces Pension Regulations when the disabilities are not attributable to or aggravated by military service.
Whether Rule 4 of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pension Awards, 1982, applies to the respondent’s case.
Whether the President’s sanction of disability pension is final or merely tentative pending the outcome of the Letters Patent Appeal.

Subjects

disability pensionRegulation 53Armed Forcesmedical board opinionconstitutional diseaseservice lawEntitlement RulesSupreme Courtappeal

Judgment

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. A
v.
DHIR SINGH CHINA. COLONEL (RETD.)

FEBRUARY 4, 2003

(N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND B.P. SINGH, JJ.] B

Service Law:

Armed Forces-Pension Regulations; Regulation 53:

Disability Pension to a retired military officer-Entitlement t<>-Held,
c
since in the opinion of Medical Board disabilities which incumbent/pensioner
-+ was suffering v.1ere neither allributable to nor aggravated by 1nilitary service
and H ere in the nature of constitutional disease, incumbent/pensioner not
1

entitled to benefit of disability pension-Regulotion 53 not attracted-
Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pension Awards, 1982; Rule 4. D
(
.

Respondent-pensioner, a military officer, was suffering from
disability to the extent of 60% at the time of his retirement. The Medical
Board opined that diseas1's responsible for such disability were neither
attributable nor aggra"ated by military service and were constitutional
in nature. Respondent's claim for disability pension was rejected by the E
Government. The Writ Petition was allowed by the Single Judge of the
High Court and pending appeal before the Division Bench of the High
Court, the President sanctioned disability pension to respondent in
compliance with order of the Single Judge and sanction order for payment
of disability pension was issued. Though Division Bench did not approve F
the finding of Single Judge granting him benefit under Rule 4 of
Entitlement Rules, it affirmed the order granting disability pension to
respondent under Regulation 53 of the Pension Regulations. Hence the
present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court G
HELD: I. I. The President sanctioned payment of disability pension
+ to the respondent with a view to implement, and in obedience to the
order of the Single Judge of the High Court. The sanction was, however,.
without prejudice to the final outcome of the Letters Patent Appeal
779 H
780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] I S.C.R.

A pending before the Division Bench. The disability element of pension has
been sanctioned till further order. This again makes it quite clear that the
sanction is tentative and subject to the pending proceedings. The sanction
was also necessary since pending the proceedings before the High Court
the appellants could not predict the outcome of the legal proceedings. ·
1783-E-F-H; 784-Bf
B
1.2. In the opinion of the Medical Board the two disabilities from
which the respondent was suffering were not attributable to or aggravated
by military service and were in the nature of constitutional diseases. The
opinion has not been assailed in this proceeding and, therefore, accepted.
C The opinion of the Medical Board clearly ruled out the applicability of
Regulation 53 to the case of the respondent. The respondent can derive
no benefit from Regulation 53. But the payments already made by way of
disability pension shall not be recovered from the pensioner.
1782-G-H; 783-A; 784-DI

D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6407 of
2002.

From the Judgment and Order dated 24.1.2001 of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana in LPA 216 of 2001.

E Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General, Hemant Sharma, R.N. Poddar, Mrs.
Anil Katiyar and B.V. Bairam Das for the Appellants.

Suresh Kumari, S.K. Sabharwal, R.D. Upadhyay, Seeraj Bagga and
Mrs. Sureshta Bagga for the Respondent.

F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B.P. SINGH, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the
judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
dated 24th January, 2001 in LPA No. 216 of 2001 whereby the appellate
G Bench dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants-Union of India and
others upholding the claim of the respondent to disability pension under
Regulation 53 of the Pension Regulations. Earlier a learned Single Judge of
the High Court had allowed the writ petition of the respondent herein upholding +
his claim for disability pension under the aforesaid Regulation 53 as also
under Rule 4 of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensioners Awards, 1982
H (hereinafter referred to as 'the Entitlement Rules'). The learned Judge
U.0.1. v. DHIR SINGH CHINA [B.P. SINGH, J.] 781
•
accordingly directed the appellants to release the disability pension of the A
respondent according to Rules and Regulations.

The facts of the case are that the respondent was commissioned in the
Indian Army in May, 1964. He served the Indian Army for many years and
ultimately superannuated from service on 31st August, 1994 holding the rank
of Lieutenant Colonel. The respondent suffered a heart attack on I Ith August, B
1994 and had to undergo a bye-pass surgery. He also suffered from Open
Angle Glaucoma in both eyes. In these circumstances, on 3rd September,
1997 he claimed disability pension which was rejected by the appellants
compelling him to file a writ petition before the High Court for a direction
to the appellants to pay him, in addition to his service pension, disability C
pension to which he claimed to be entitled in accordance with the Rules. It
+ is also not in dispute that the respondent was examined by a Medical Board
consisting of three members on 31st August, 1994. The Board found that the
• respondent had suffered disability to the extent of 60% on account of (I) IHD
(Angina Pectoris) (40%) and (2) Primary Open Angle Glaucoma in both eyes
(20%). The Medical Board was also of the opinion that neither of these D
diseases were either attributable to or aggravated by military service and that
the diseases \vere constitutional in nature.

Regulation 53 of the Regulations provides as follows :-
E
"Officers compulsorily retired on account of age or on completion of
tenure.

53. An officer compulsorily retired on account of age or on completion
of tenure, if suffering on retirement from a disability attributable to
or aggravated by military service and recorded by service medical F
authority may at the discretion of the President, be granted in addition
to retiring pension admissible, a disability element as if he/she had
been retired on account of disability, according to accepted degree of
disablement at the time of retirement."

Rule 4 of the Entitlement Rules reads as follows :- G

"4. Invaliding fron1 service is a necessary condition for grant of
disability pension. An individual who, at the time of his release under
the Release Regulations, is in a Jo,ver 1nedical category than that in
which he was recruited will be treated as invalidated from service. H
782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 1 S.C.R.

A JCO/OR and equivalents in other services who are placed permanently
A
in a medical category other than 'A' and are discharged because no
alternative employment suitable to their low medical category can be
provided, as well as those who having been retained in alternative
employment but are discharged before the completion of their
engagement will be deemed to have been invalidated out of service."
B
The learned Single Judge who heard the writ petition accepted the +"
contention of the respondent that apart from Regulation 53, under Rule 4 of
the Entitlement Rules, an individual, who at the time of his release under the
release regulations, is in a lower medical category than that in which he was
recruited, is treated to be invalidated from service. He, therefore, held that
c the moment an officer is reduced to the inferior category in the medical chart,
it automatically amounts to invalidation and consequently he would be entitled
to disability pension in addition to the regular service pension.
+
\-
We may observe that this finding of the learned Judge has not been
D approved by the Division Bench in appeal, but the Division Bench was of
view that in any event the respondent was entitled to disability pension under
Regulation 53. Even before us the claim of the respondent was not sought to
be justified on the basis of Rule 4 of the Entitlement Rules. We have also
considered the aforesaid Rule 4 of the Entitlement. Rules and we are also of
the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the said Rule was
E not applicable to the case of the respondent. t

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 aggravated by military service and recorded by service medical authority, .l(
F
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 superannuation.
The question, therefore, which arises for consideration is whether he was
suffering, on retirement, from a disability attributable to or aggravated by
G military service and recorded by service medical authority. We have already
referred to the opinion of the Medical Board which found that the two f-
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.
H The diseases from which he was suffering were not found to be attributable
U.0.1. v. DHIR SINGH CHINA [B.P. SINGH, I] 783

to or aggravated by military service, and were in the nature of constitutional A
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 proceeding and, therefore, must
be accepted.

Learned counsel for the respondent sought to sustain the order of the B
High Court on the ground that the President, in the meantime, has been
pleased to decide and hold that the disabilities suffered by the respondent,
which he was found to be suffering at the time of his release from service,
be regarded as attributable to military service, and the degree of disablement
has been assessed at 60%. The issue has therefore become academic. This C
submission is misconceived. Annexure P-2 is a communication addressed to
the Chief Controller of Defence, Accounts (Pensions), Allahabad by the Under
+ Secretary to the Government of India and is dated I 8th October, 2000. The
letter refers to the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 10th
July, 2000 and proceeds to state that the President has sanctioned the
implementation of the above said order of the High Court. The authority was D
accordingly requested to work out the amount involved during the period of
award and intimate the same to the Ministry so that ex-post-facto sanction
may be accorded. Paragraph 4 of the communication clearly states that the
sanction under the letter was, however, without prejudice to the final out
come of the LPA to be filed before the Division Bench of the High Court. E
It would thus appear from Annexure P-2 that after the judgment and order
of the learned Single Judge the President was pleased to sanction payment of
disability pension to the respondent with a view to implement and in obedience
to the order of the High Court, and accordingly directions were issued to
work out the amount involved during the period of award. The sanction was,
however, without prejudice to the final out come of the Letters Patent Appeal F
to be filed before the Division Bench. The sanction clearly appears to be
tentative and without prejudice. Even the relevant palt of the final order
passed, which is Annexure R-1, dated I 7th November, 2000 states as follows:-

"Accordingly, Col. Dhir Singh Chhina IC-21830-K is sanctioned
subject to usual condition the disability element of pension @ Rs. G
450 (Rs. Four hundred fifty only) P.M. for 60% disablement w.e.f.
31.8.94 till further order."

It would, thus appear that the disability element of pension has been
sanctioned till fu1ther order. This again makes it quite clear that the sanction H
784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) I S.C.R.

A is tentative and subject to the pending proceedings. A reading of Annexure
R-1 and Annexure P-2, therefore, leaves no room for doubt that in view of
the order passed by the High Court, tentative sanction was granted for payment
of disability element of pension but the same was without prejudice to the
final out come of the Letters Patent Appeal. It was only in obedience to the
order of the Court that such a sanction was granted, but without prejudice to
B the rights and contentions of the appellants who had challenged the order of ·
the Court. We, therefore, cannot accept the contention of the counsel for the
respondent that in view of the decision of the President of India sanctioning
the disability pension, nothing remains to be considered by the Court. The
sanction clearly is tentative and till further order. This was necessary since
C the proceedings were still pending before the Court and the appellants could
not predict the out come of the legal proceedings.

In these circumstances we find no substance in the 1,;ontention of the
respondent that he was entitled to disability pension under Regulation 53. We
accordingly allow the appeal, set .aside the order of the learned Single Judge
D as affinned by the Division Bench in LPA No. 216 of2001 and hold that the
respondent is not entitled to disability pension under Regulation 53. However,
in the facts and circumstances of the case any payment made by way of
disability pension shall not be recovered from the respondent. In the facts of
the case there shall be no order as to costs.

E S.K.S. Appeal allowed.