UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusJUJHAR SINGH

                         [2011] 8 S.C.R. 258
                                                                    --
A                      UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
                                 v.
                          JUJHAR SINGH
                 (Civil Appeal No. 4281 of 2006)
                           JULY 15, 2011
B
           [P. SATHASIVAM AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.)

        Service Law:

c      Armed Forces - Army - Disability pension - Army
  personnel while on annual leave, suffered injuries in a road
  accident - Medical Board assessed his disability as 60% for
  two years - After superannuation with normal pension he
  claimed disability pension - HELD: The Medical Board
0 clearly opined that the injury was neither attributable to nor
  connected with service - The injury which had no connection
  with military service cannot be termed as attributable to or
  aggravated by military service - The claim was rightly
  rejected by the authorities - Pension Regulations of the Army
E (Part-I), 1961 - Regulation 179 - Entitlement Rules, 1982 -
  Para 12(d) - Government of India Letter NO. 1(1)181/(PEN)C/
  Vol. II dated 27. 10. 1998.     ·

       Armed Forces - Claim for disability pension - Opinion
  of Medical Board - HELD: In the instant case, medical
F authorities have recorded a specific finding to the effect that
  disability is neither attributable to nor aggravated by the
  military service - The High Court has failed to appreciate that
  the Medical Board is a Specialized Authority composed of
  expert medical doctors and it is the final authority to give
G information regarding attributability and aggravation of the
  disability to the military service and the condition of service
  resulting in the disablement of the individual.

        The respondent was enrolled in the Army on
H                               258
--        UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. JUJHAR SINGH              259 .


     27.06.1978. On 26.03.1987, when he was at his native            A·
     place on annual leave, he met with an accident and
     sustained severe injuries and was hospitalized. After he
     joined the duty, he was kept under observation by the
     Medical Board and his disability was assessed as 60%
     for two years. The Medical Board also opined that the           B
     disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by
     the military service. The respondent was superannuated
     from service w.e.f. 01.07.1998 and he was granted normal
     service pension. He made a representation claiming
     disability pension on the ground that he was having             c
     disability on the date of retirement. The representation
     was rejected. The respondent preferred a writ petition,
     which was allowed by the Single Judge of the High Court
     holding that the respondent was entitled to disability
     pension under Regulation 179 of the Pension Regulations
                                                                     0
     for the Army, 1961. The Letters Patent appeal filed by the
     employers was dismissed by the Division Bench of the
     High Court. Aggrieved, the employers filed the appeal.
         Allowing the appeal, the Court
                                                                     E
          HELD: 1.1. It is not in dispute that the respondent
     was on annual leave when he met with a scooter accident
     as a pillion rider and sustained injuries on 26.03.1987 at
     his native place. He was not on military duty at the time
     of the accident in terms of Para 12 (d) of Entitlement          F
     Rules, 1982 as clarified by Government of India letter
     No.1(1)/81(PEN)CNol.ll dated 27.10.1998. In view of the
     same, the injuries sustained cannot be held to be
     attributable to the military servicl'I. [para 8] [265-E-F]

          1.2. The opinion of the Medical Board makes it clear       G
     that the injury is not attributable to service and it is not
     connected with service. The proceedings of the Court of
     Inquiry show that the injury of severe nature sustained
     by the respondent during his Annual Leave was not
     attributable to Military Service. Thus, the injury which had    H
    260       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011] 8 S.C.R.
                                                                      --
A no connection with the military service even though
  suffered during annual leave cannot be termed as
  attributable to or aggra.vated ·by military service. [paras
  13,14 and-17] [270-A-B-G; 272-B-C]

        Regional Director, E. S. /. Corporation and Another vs.
8
    Francis De Costa and Another, 1996 (5) Suppl. SCR 797 =
     (1996) 6 sec 1 - relied on

          Ex. N.K. Di/bag vs. Union of India and Others, 2008 (106)
    Delhi Reported Judgment 865 - approved
c
       Union of India and Another vs. Baljit Singh 1996
  (7) Suppl. SCR 626 =(1996) 11 SCC 315; and Secretary,
  Ministry of Defence and Others vs. A. V. Damodaran (dead)
  through LRs. and Others, 2009 (13) SCR 416 = (2009) 9
0 sec   140 - referred to.

        1.3. The Single Judge of the High Court failed to
    appreciate that under Regulation 179 of the Pension
    Regulations of the Army (Part-I), 1961, a personnel can
    be granted disability pension only if he is found suffering
E   from disability which is attributable to or aggravated by
    military service and recorded by Service Medical
    Authorities. In the case on hand, medical authorities have
    recorded a specific finding to the effect that disability is
    neither attributable to nor aggravated by the military
F   service. This fact has not been appreciated either by the
    Single Judge or by the Division Bench of the High Court,
    which without assigning any reason, by way of a cryptic
    order, confirmed the order of the Single Judge. The High
    Court has also failed to appreciate that the Medical Board
G   is a Specialized Authority composed of expert medical
    doctors and it is the final authority to give information
    regarding attributability and aggravation of the disability
    to the military service and the condition of service·
    resulting in the disablement of the individual. [para 16]
H   [271-E-H]
     UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. JUJHAR SINGH                 261


     1.4. The High Court failed to appreciate that even           A
though the respondent sustained injuries while he was
on annual leave in 1987, he was kept in service till
superannuation and he was superannuated from service
w.e.f. 01.07.1998. It is relevant to point out that he was also
granted full normal pension as.admissible under the               B
Regulations. [para 17] [~72-B-C]
     1.5. The judgments of the Single Judge as well as the
Division Bench of the High Court are set aside. It is made
clear that the respondent is entitled to "full normal             C
pension" which he is already getting as per the
Regulations, but not entitled to "disability pension". [para
18) [272-F-G]
                     Case Law Reference:
 1996 (5) Suppl. SCR 797              relied on     para 9        D

 1996 (7) Suppl. SCR 626              referred to   para 10
 2009 (13) SCR416                     referred to   para 11
 2008 (106) Delhi                     approved      para 12       E.
Reported Judgment 865.
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
4281 of 2006.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 4.1.2002 of the High          F·
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 5 of
2002.                                       .

     R. Balasubramaniam, Purnima Bhat Kak, Anil Katiyar,
B.V. Balaram Das for the Appellants..                             G.

    Respondent, In-Person.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

                                                                  H
    262       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011) 8 S.C.R.
                                                                       --
A        P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. This appeal by Union of India is
    directed against the final judgment and order dated 04.01.2002
    passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
    in LP.A. No. 5 of 2002 whereby the Division Bench of the High
    Court dismissed their appeal in limine.
B
          2. Brief facts:

        (a) The respondent was enrolled in the Army on
  27.06.1978. In the year 1987, when he was on annual leave to
  his native place, he met with an accident on 26.03.1987 and
C sustained severe injuries and was admitted in the hospital from
  26.03.1987 to 20.01.1989. Subsequently, he was admitted in
  Military Hospital, Dehradun and after treatment was placed in
  medical category BEE (Permanent) and percentage of
  disability was ascertained as 20%. After he joined the duty, he
D was kept under observation by the Medical Board and his
  disability was assessed as 60% for two years. The Medical
  Board also opined that the disability was neither attributable
  to nor aggravated by the military service.

E       (b) The respondent was superannuated from service w.e.f.
    01.07.1998 and he was granted normal service pension. He
    made a representation before the authorities claiming disability
    pension on the ground that he was having disability on the date
    of retirement. The representation was rejected by the
    authorities.
F
       (c) Against the rejection of disability pension claim, the
  respondent preferred a writ petition being C.W.P. No. 14290
  of 1999 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Learned
  Single Judge of the High Court, by order dated 20.07.2001,
G allowed the writ petition by holding that the respondent herein
  is entitled for disability pension under Regulation 179 of the
  Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (hereinafter referred
  to as "the Regulations").

          (d) Challenging the said order, the appellants herein
H
       UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. JUJHAR SINGH                   263
                 [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
preferred LP.A. No. 5 of 2002 before the Division Bench of            A
the High Court. The Division Bench, by impugned judgment
dated 04.01.2002, dismissed the appeal in limine. Aggrieved
by the said judgment, the appellants preferred this appeal by
way of special leave petition before this Court.

    3. Heard Mr. R. Balasubramaniam, learned counsel for the          B
appellant-Union of India and Mr. Jujhar Singh respondent, who
appeared in person.

       4. The questions that arise for consideration in this appeal
are:                                                                  c
        (a)   Whether the case of the respondent for disability is
              covered under Regulation 179 of the Pension
              Regulations for the Army (Part I) 1961?

        (b)   Whether the disability in an accident suffered by the   D
              respondent during his annual leave while doing his
              personal work would amount to the disability
              attributable to or aggravated by military service?

       5. Discussion:                                                 E
      We have already narrated the required fadual details. It
is seen that when the respondent was on annual leave, he met
with a road accident at his native place and sustained grievous
injuries resulting in permanent disability. It is further seen that   F
after treatment and returning from his leave, he continued in
military service and w.e.f. 01.07 .1998, the respondent was
superannuated from service and he was granted normal service
pension. According to the respondent, since on the date of
retirement, he was permanently disabled, he is entitled for
disability pension for which he made a representation which was       G
rejected by the authorities.

    6. It was contended by the respondent before the learned
Single Judge that at the relevant time when he had gone on
leave he remained in military service and while attending to his      H
    264       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011) 8 S.C.R.
                                                                       -
A normal duties at home he suffered disability and later
  superannuated with the said disability, hence eligible for
  disability pension. The learned Single Judge arrived at a
  conclusion that the writ petitioner- respondent herein is entitled
  to disability pension as envisaged under Regulation 179 of the
B Regulations since he retired in normal course and he was not
  invalidated from military service on account of his disability but
  the fact is that he was suffering from disability on the date of
  retirement which is above the degree of 20%. He also
  concluded that as per Defence Service Regulations, when a
C defence personnel goes on leave, he is counted on duty unless
  the leave is determined as unauthorized leave. In this way,
  relying on Regulation 179, the learned Single Judge allowed
  the writ petition and directed the authorities to process the case
  of the writ petitioner (respondent herein) for granting disability
  pension in accordance with law. When this order was
D challenged by the Union of India before the Division Bench of
  the High Court, the Division Bench, by impugned order dated
  04.01.2002, dismissed their appeal without assigning any
  reason.

E       7. In order to answer the above referred questions, it is
    useful to refer Regulation 179 which reads thus:

          "Disability at the time of retirement/discharge

        179. An individual retired/discharged on completion of
F       tenure or on completion of service limits or on completion
        of terms of engagement or attaining the age of 50 years
        (irrespective of their period of engagement), if found
        suffering from a disability attributable to or aggravated by
       ·military service and recorded by Service Medical
G       Authorities, shall be deemed to have been invalidated out
        of service and shall be granted disability pension from the
        date of retirement, if the accepted degree of disability is
        less than 20 per cent or more, and service element if the
        degree of disability is less than 20 per cent. The service
H       pension/service gratuity, if already sanctioned and paid,
       UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. JUJHAR SINGH                  265
                 [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
      shall be a·djusted against the disability pension/service      A
      element, as the case may be.

       (2) the disability element referred to in clause (1) above
       shall be assessed on the accepted degree of disablement
       at the time of retirement/discharge on the basis of the rank 8
       held on the date on which the wound/injury was sustained ·
     · or in the case of disease on the date of first removal from
       duty on account of that disease."

      8. It is clear that if a person concerned found suffering from
    ability attributable to or aggravated by military service, he C
       be granted disability pension. The other condition is that
         ability is to be examined/assessed by Seriice Medical
   uthorities and based upon their opinion a decision has to be
 taken by the authority concerned. The respondentshould satisfy
 the conditions specified in the Regulation. In this case, it is the D
 definite stand of the. authorities that disability has neither
 occurred in the course of employment nor attributable to or
 aggravated by military service. We have already pointed out
 and it is not in dispute that the respondent was on annual leave
 when he met with a scooter accident as a pillion rider and . E
 sustained injuries on 26.03.1987 at his native place. He was
 not on military duty at the time of the accident in terms of Para
 12 (d) of Entitlement Rules, 1982 as clarified vide Government
 of India, Ministry referred letter No.1(1)/81(PEN)CNol.ll dated
 27.10.1998. In view of the same, the injuries sustained cannot F
 be held to be attributable to the military service .

        . 9. In this background, it is useful to refer decision of this
   Court in Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation and Another vs.
   Francis De Costa and Another, (1996) 6 SCC 1. Though this
   decision arose under the Employees' State Insurance Act, G
   1948, we are of the view that since there is a similar provision
.. in the Employees' State Insurance Act, namely, that the accident
   should have its origin in the employment and the same should
   have arisen out of and in the course of employment, the same ·
   is applicable to the case on hand. In that case, the respondent H
    266        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011) 8 S.C.R.


A employee while going to his place of employment (a factory),
  met with an accident at a place which was about only one
  kilometer away from the factory. The accident occurred at 4.15
  p.m. while his duty-shift was to commence at 4.30 p.m. As a
  result of the accident, the respondent's collar bone was
B fractured. The question before this Court was whether the said
  injury amounted to "employment injury" within the meaning of
  Section 2(8) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948
  entitling the respondent to claim disablement benefit. Answering
  in the negative, this Court held "a road accident may happen
c anywhere at any time. But such accident cannot be said to hav
  arisen out of employment, unless it can be shown that
  employee was doing something incidental to his employm

       10. In Union of India and Another vs. Ba/jit Singh (1996J
  11 sec 315, the respondent therein was enrolled in the Army
D as an Apprentice on 30.03.1975 and was appointed in the
  service on regular basis w.e.f. 27.03.1977 in the EME 177
  Battalion. While he was in service he had sustained moderately
  severe injury. On the basis of the opinion of the Medical Board,
  he was discharged from service as an invalidated man on
E 31.05.1981. In the writ petition filed by him, the High Court of
  Himachal Pradesh directed the authorities to pay him disability
  pension. This was challenged by the Union of India before this
  Court by way of appeal by special leave. From the materials
  placed, this Court concluded that it cannot be said that the
F sustenance of injury per se is on account of military service. The
  report of the Medical Board of doctors shows that it is not due
  to military service. Finally, it was held by this Court as under:

          "In each case, when a disability pension is sought for and
          made a claim, it must be affirmatively established, as a
G
          fact, as to whether the injury sustained was due to military
          service or was aggravated which contributed to
          invalidation for the military service. Accordingly, we are of
          the view that the High Court was not totally correct in
          reaching that conclusion".
H
•     UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. JUJHAR SINGH
                [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
                                                              267

   11. In Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others vs. A. V.        A
Damodaran (dead) through LRs. and Others, (2009) 9 SCC
  140, the opinion of the Medical Board and acceptability or
  otherwise for awarding disability pension was considered. The
  short. question that was considered in that case was whether
  the High Court was justified in ignoring the report of the Medical B
  Board in which it was clearly mentioned that disability of A.V.
    amodaran was neither attributable to nor aggravated by
    ilitary service. On examination, the Medical Board had opined
      t the disability of A.V. Damodaran was not attributable to the
          ry service nor has it been aggravated thereby and it is not C
           cted with the service as schizophrenia is a constitutional
             .. The legal representatives of A.V. Damodaran filed
        inal writ petition before the High Court praying for grant of
  disability pension. By order dated 20.12.2000, the learned
. Single Judge allowed the original petition and declared that the
  individual was eligible to get disability pension under the D
 provisions contained in the Pension Regulations for the Army,
  1961 and such other enabling provisions. The Department filed .
  a writ appeal before the High Court. The Division Bench
 dismissed the said appeal finding no reason to interfere with
 the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge. After E
  considering Regulation 173 which speaks about primary
  conditions for the grant of disability pension and various other
  earlier decisions, this Court concluded that the Medical Board
  is an expert body and its opinion is entitled to be given due
  weight, value and credence. In that case, the Medical Board F
  has clearly opined that the disability of late A.V. Damodaran
  was neither attributable nor aggravated by military service. In
  this way, this Court concluded that the legal representatives of
 A.V. Damodaran are not entitled to disability pension. However,
  in the facts and circumstances of that case, this Court directed G
 that the amounts which have already been paid to the LRs of
 deceased A.V. Damodaran towards disability pension may not
 be recovered from them.

    · 12. In Ex. N.K. Di/bag vs. Union of/ndia and Others, 2008      H
    268        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011) 8 S.C.R.


A   (106) Delhi Reported Judgment 865, a Full Bench of the Delhi
    High Court had an occasion to consider the similar issue and
    eligibility of disability pension by Armed Forces Personnel.
    After adverting to various decisions of this Court as well as of
    the High Courts, it concluded thus:
B         "24. To sum up our analysis, the foremost feature,
          consistently highlighted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is
          that it requires to be established that the injury or fatality
          suffered by the concerned military personnel bears a
          causal connection with military service. Secondly, if thi·
c         obligation exists so far as discharge from the Arm
          Forces on the opinion of a Medical Board the oblip·
          and responsibility a fortiori exists so far as injuri
          fatalities suffered during casual leave are concerned.
          Thirdly, as a natural corollary it is irrelevant whether the
D         concerned personnel was on casual or annual leave at the
          time or at the place when and where the incident
          transpired. This is so because it is the causal connection
          which alone is relevant. Fourthly, since travel to and fro the
          place of posting may not appear to everyone as an incident
E         of military service, a specific provision has been
          incorporated in the Pension Regulations to bring such
          travel within the entitlement for Disability Pension if an injury
          is sustained in this duration. Fifthly, the Hon'ble Supreme
          Court has simply given effect to this Rule and has not laid
F         down in any decision that each and every injury sustained
          while availing of casual leave would entitle the victim to
          claim Disability Pension. Sixthly, provisions treating casual
          leave as on duty would be relevant for deciding questions
          pertaining to pay or to the right of the Authorities to curtail
G         or cancel the leave. Such like provisions have been
          adverted to by the Supreme Court only to buttress their
          conclusion that travel to and fro the place of posting is an
          incident of military service. Lastly, injury or death resulting
          from an activity not connected with military service would
          not justify and sustain a claim for Disability Pension. This
H
      UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. JUJHAR SINGH                      269
                [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

    is so regardless of whether the injury or death has                 A
    occurred at the place of posting or during working hours.
    This is because attributability to military service is a factor
    which is required to be established."

    In the light of oµr ?iscussion, we fully endorse the views          B
expressed by the Full Bench.

      13. Mr. R. Balasubramaniam, learned counsel appearing
  r the Union of India has pressed into service the opinion of
     Medical Board which reads as under:
                                                                        c
     1. Did the disability/ies exist before entering service?


    2. (a) In respect of each dis~pility the Medical Board on
    the evidence before it will express its views as to whether?        D

     (i) It is attributable to service during peace or under field
    ·service condition; or

     (ii) It has been aggravated thereby and remains so; or
                                                                        E
     (iii) It is not connected with service.

     The Board should state fully the reasons in regard to each
     disability on which its opinion is based.      ·
                                                                        F
     Disability                       A           B          c
     1. FRACTURE SHAFT OF No                      No         Yes
    TIBINFEBtH:;:A (Lt) LOWER .
     1/3
     2. SUPRA CONDYLAR
     FRACTURE FEMUR (Lt)"
It is pointed out that A, B and C ref~rs (i), (ii) and (iii) which is
not in dispute. The above opinion mt=1kes it clear that the injury,
particularly, the fracture is not attriputable to service and it is
                                                                        H
    270        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 8 S.C.R.


A   not connected with service.

          14. The proceedings of the Court of Inquiry are.as under:
          "Proceedings of a            Court of Inquiry
          Assembled at                 19 GUARDS (ATGM) Clo 56
B         On the day of                APO 10 Jul 90
          IN the order of              Commanding. Officer 19
                                       Guards (ATGM)
          For the purpose of           Enquiring into the
                                       circumstances Under which
c                                      No. 1367100 H NK
                                       Jujhar Singh met with a
                                       accident on 26 Mar 87,
                                       his Annual leave.
                                  (Vide BROS No. 160 dt. 06 May
D                                 89) PRESIDING OFFICER 10-
                                  4743
                                  Lt. KK Singh          .·
                                  Members 1. JC-115678A Sub·
                                                P.C. Sharma
                                            2. JC-166001 XNb.Sub
E
                                                Diwani Chand
          The Court having assembled pursuant to order proceed
          to examine the witnesses.

          OPINION OF THE COURT
F
          The opinion of the court is as under:-

          (a) Inquiry of severe nature sustained by No.13677100 H.
          NK Jujhar Singh during his Annual Leave is not attributable
G         to the Military Service.

          (b} No. 1367100 H NK Jujhar Singh is not be blamed for
          the injury sustained to him during accident.


H
     UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. JUJHAR SINGH                     271
               [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
           Presiding Officer                    Sdxxx                  A
                                      IC47438 F Lt. KK Singh
           Member                                Sdxx
                                  JC-115678A Sub PC Sharma
                                                 Sd xx·                B
                         JC 16600 I X Nb Sub Diwani Chand."

      15. The above factual details and materials show that first
  f all, the respondent herein sustained injuries in a road
   cident at his home town during his annual leave which was C
      ttributable to the military service. It was strengthened from
       pinion of the Medical Board that the injuries were not
attributable to the service and it was also not connected with
the service. In A. V. Damodaran's case (supra), this Court has
emphasized the importance of the opinion of the Medical Board · D
which is an expert body and its opinion is entitled to be given
due weight, value and credence.                                     ·

      16. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge failed
to appreciate that under Regulation 179 a personnel can be             E
granted disability pension only if he is found suffering from
disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military
service and recorded by Service Medical Authorities. In the
case on hand, medical authorities have recorded a specific
finding to the effect that disability is neither attributable to nor   F
aggravated by the military service. This fact has not been
appreciated either by the learned Single Judge or by the
Division Bench of the High Court. The High Court has also
failed to appreciate that the Medical Board is a Specialized
Authority composed of expert medical doctors and it is the final
authority to give information regarding attributability and            G
aggravation of the disability to the military service and the
condition of service resulting in. the disablement of the
individual. These relevant facts have not been considered by
the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High
Cou~                                                                   H
    272      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 8 S.C.R.


A      17. As rightly pointed by the counsel for the Union of India,
  the High Court failed to appreciate that even though the
  respondent sustained injuries while he was on annual leave in
  1987, he was kept in service till superannuation and he was
  superannuated from service w.e.f. 01.07.1998. It is relevant to
B point out that he was also granted full normal pension as
  admissible under the Regulations. In the case on hand,
  inasmuch as the injury which had no connection with the military
  service even though suffered during annual leave cannot be
  termed as attributable to or aggravated by military service. The
c member of the Armed Forces who is claiming disability pensio
  must be able to show a normal nexus between the a
  omission or commission resulting in an injury to the person
  the normal expected standard of duties and way of life exp .
  from member of such forces. Inasmuch as the respondent
D sustained disability when he was on annual leave that too at
  his home town in a road accident, the conclusion of the learned
  Single,Judge that he is entitled to disability pension under
  Regulation 179 is not based on any material whatsoever.
  Unfortunately, the Division Bench, without assigning any
  reason, by way of a cryptic order, confirmed the order of the
E learned Single Judge.

       18. In view of our discussion, the judgments of the learned
  Single Judge as well as the Division Bench are set aside. We
  make it clear that the respondent is entitled to "full normal
F pension" which he is already getting as per the Regulations,
  but not entitled to "disability pension". The appeal is allowed.
  No costs.

    R.P.                                          Appeal allowed.