Holding

The denial of disability pension was illegal because the Medical Board failed to record reasons, and the statutory presumption in favour of the service member means the respondent is entitled to the pension.

Summary

Manjeet Singh joined the Indian Army in 1999 and was later diagnosed with generalized tonic‑clonic seizures and neurotic depression, leading to his invalidation in 2002 with a composite disability of 20%. The Medical Board denied him a disability pension, concluding the ailments were constitutional and unrelated to service, but provided no reasons for this finding. The Supreme Court examined Regulation 173 of the 1961 Pension Regulations, Rules 5, 9 and 14 of the 1954 Army Rules, and the General Principles, which create a statutory presumption that a disability discovered after entry is attributable to service unless the authority cogently disproves it. The Court held that the Board’s failure to record reasons violated the regulations, the presumption in favour of the soldier remained, and the burden of proof lay on the authorities. Consequently, the denial of pension was illegal and the respondent was entitled to disability pension from the date of his discharge.

Issues considered

Whether the Medical Board’s denial of disability pension without recording reasons complies with Regulation 173, Rules 5, 9 and 14 and the General Principles.
Whether the statutory presumption that a disability is attributable to Army service applies when the disability is described as constitutional or genetic.
Who bears the burden of proving that a disability is not attributable to or aggravated by Army service.
Whether the respondent, with a composite disability of 20% and no reasons recorded by the Board, is entitled to disability pension.

Legislation cited

Subjects

disability pensionarmy servicemedical boardstatutory presumptionburden of proofRegulation 173Rule 5Rule 9Rule 14general principlesconstitutional disabilityattributabilityaggravation

Judgment

(2015] 6 S.C.R. 192

A UNION OF INDIA &ORS.
v.
MANJEET SINGH
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4357-4358 of 2015)
B
MAY 12, 2015
[M.Y. EQBALANDAMITAVAROY, JJ.]

Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961: Regulation
C 173; Army Rules, 1954: rr. 5, 9 and 14 - Disability pension -
Entitlement for- Held: There is a statutory presumption, that
the disease/disability for which a member of Army service is
boarded out, had been contracted by him during his tenure,
unless the same is displaced by cogent and persuasive
D reasons recorded by the Medical Board- Burden to disprove
the correlation of disability with the Army service has been
cast on the authorities- In the instant case, the Medical Board
computed the composite disability of the respondent to be
E 20% - No reason was cited by Board in support of this
conclusion - On the contrary, its deduction that the disabilities
were unrelated to the Army service, was founded only on the
fact that those were constitutional in nature and no other
reason whatsoever - There was no reason assigned in the
F proceedings of the Medical Board, as to why his disabilities
eventually adjudged to be constitutional or genetic in nature,
had escaped the notice of the authorities concerned at the
time of his acceptance for Army service - Comprehensive
G consideration of the Regulation, Rules and the General
Principles as applicable, the service profile of the respondent
and the proceedings of the Medical Board showed that the
respondent had been wrongly denied the benefit of disability
pension.
H
192
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. MANJEET SINGH 193

Dismissing the appeals, the Court A

HELD: 1. It is undisputed, that soon after the
respondent had joined the service on 6.4.1999 having
been adjudged to be fully fit therefor, following a rigorous
medical test, he fell ill and had to be hospitalized where B
he was diagnosed in due course, to be afflicted by (1)
"Generalised Tonic Clonic Seizure" and (2) "Neurotic
Depression". The respondent was hospitalized on more
than one occasion during his short tenure ranging from
8.4.1999to1.1.2002 when he was invalided from service. C
He had actively served in all, for a period of about one
year. He was thus mostly under treatment, for the above
two disabilities during his stint with the appellants. [Para
15] [204-E-G]
D
Secretary, Ministry of Defence &Others vs. A. II. Damodaran
(Dead) through LRs. & Others 2009 (13) SCR 416: (2009) 9
sec 140 - referred to.
2. A conjoint reading of Regulation 173, Rule 5, 9 E
and 14 of the Rules as well as paras 7, 8 and 9 of the
"General Principles" brings to the fore, a statutory
presumption, that a member of the service governed
thereby, is presumed to have been in sound medical
condition at the entry, except as to the physical disability F
as recorded at that point of time and that if he is
subsequently discharged from service on the ground
of disability, any deterioration in his health has to be
construed to be attachable to his service. The exception
to this deduction is, only in the event of a medical G
opinion, supported by reasons to the effect that the
disease could not have been detected on medical
examination prior to acceptance for service, whereupon
it would be deemed that the disease had not arisen
during service. The incident of invaliding a member of H
194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 6 S.C.R.

A the Army service, entails curtailment of the normal tenure,
for his recorded disability to the extent of 20% or more
and thus the disentitling requisites would have to be
stringently construed. The burden to disprove the
correlation of the disability with the Army service has
B been cast on the authorities by the Regulation, Rules
and the General Principles and thus, any inchoate,
casual, perfunctory or vague approach of the authorities
would tantamount to non-conformance of the letter and
spirit thereof, consequently invalidating the decision of
C denial. The bearing of the Army service as an
aggravating factor qua even a dormant and elusive
constitutional or genetic disability in all fact situations,
thus cannot be readily ruled out. Hence the predominant
D significance of the requirement of the reasons to be
recorded by the Medical Board and the
recommendations based thereon for boarding out a
member from service. As a corollary, in absence of
reasons to reinforce the opinion, that the disability is not
E attributable to the Army service or is not aggravated
thereby, denial of the benefit of disability pension would
be illegal and indefensible. The medical opinion in the
instant case, as the precursor of the invalidment of the
respondent therefore needs to be assayed in this
F presiding statutory backdrop. [Paras 16, 17) [209-G-H;
210-A, D-E; 211-A-B, D-E, G-H; 212-A-B, C-D]

Dharamvir Singh vs. Union of India & Others (2013) 7
sec 316- relied on.
G Union of India & Others vs. Jujhar Singh 2011 (8) SCR
258: (2011) 7 sec 735 - referred to.

4. The Board on the basis of the disabilities (1)
"Generalised Tonic Clonic Seizure-345" and (2) "Neurotic
H
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. MANJEET SINGH 195

Depression-300" did compute the composite disability A
of the respondent to be 20%. The respondent had on
being queried during his examination, denied to have
been suffering from any of the disabilities at the time of
joining the Army service. Though as per Clause 2(a) of
Part Ill, the Medical Board was required to express its B
· views on the aspects as to whether the disabilities were;
(1) attributable to service during peace or under field
service conditions; (2) aggravated thereby and remained
to be so; (3) not connected with service; and was
required to state reasons with regard to each of the C
disabilities on which its opinion was based, it merely
recorded in the negative vis-a•vis the first two and in
the affirmative qua the third and abruptly concluded that
both the disabilities were constitutional in nature and
0
hence unconnected with Army service. No reason
whatsoever was cited by the Medical Board in support
of this conclusion. On the contrary, its deduction, that
the disabilities were unrelated to the Army service was
founded only on the fact that those were constitutional E
in nature and no other consideration or reason
whatsoever. There is no reason forthcoming in the
proceedings of the Medical Board, as to why his
disabilities, eventually adjudged to be constitutional or
genetic in nature, had escaped the notice of the F
authorities concerned, at the time of his acceptance for
Army service. On a comprehensive consideration of the
Regulation, Rules and the General Principles as
applicable, the service profile of the respondent and the
proceedings of the Medical Board, he had been wrongly G
denied the benefit of disability pension. His tenure, albeit
short, during which he had to be frequently hospitalized,
does not irrefutably rule out the possibility, in absence
of any reason recorded by the Medical Board, that the
disabilities even assumed to be constitutional or genetic, H
196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 6 S.C.R.

A had not been induced or aggravated by the arduous
military conditions. The requirement of recording
reasons, is not contingent on the duration of the Army
service of the member thereof and is instead of
peremptory nature, failing which the decision to board
B him out would be vitiated by an inexcusable infraction
of the relevant statutory provisions. Having regard to
the letter and spirit of the Regulation, Rules and the
General Principles, the prevailing presumption in favour
of a member of the Army service boarded out on account
C of disability and the onus cast on the authorities to
displace the same, the denial of disability pension to
the respondent in the facts and circumstances of the
case, have been repugnant to the relevant statutory
provisions and thus cannot be sustained in law. [Paras ·
0
19 to 22] [215-A-H; 216-8-H]

Dharamvir Singh vs. Union of India 2013 (7) SCC 316
-relied on.

E Veer Pal Singh vs. Secretary, Ministry of Defence 2013
(10) SCR 579: (2013) 8 SCC 83 - referred to.

Case Law Reference
2009 (13) SCR 416 Referred to. Para 13
F 2011 (8) SCR 258 Referred to. Para 13
2013 (10) SCR 579 Referred to. Para 13
2013 (7) SCC 316 Relied on. Paras 13, 25
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
G Nos. 4357-4358 of 2015

From the Judgment and Order dated 22.05.2012 of
the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, at Jammu in LPASW
No. 157 of 2009 and CMA No. 211 of 2009

H P. S. Patwalia, ASG, R. Balasubramanian, Kiran
UNION OF INDIA& ORS. v. MANJEET SINGH 197

Bhardwaj, R. S. Nagar, R. S. Jena, B. V. Bala ram Das for the A
Appellants.

Vivek Chib, Gautam Narayan, Joby Verghese, Ankit
Prakash for the Respondent.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

AMITAVA ROY, J. -1. Leave granted.

2. The instant appeals witness a challenge to the
judgment and order dated 22nd May, 2012 rendered in C
LPA(SW) No. 157/2009 and CMA No. 211/2009 affirming
the determination made in SWP No. 1439/2004 thereby
sustaining the claim of the respondent herein to disability
pension on being boarded out of the Army service on the
ground of disabilities identified as "Generalised Tonic Clonic D
Seizure" and "Neurotic Depression".

3. The Union of India being aggrieved by the
concurrent verdicts requiring it to grant disability pension to
the respondent herein from the date of his discharge from E
service, seeks redress in the instant appeals.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties
and have perused the records.
F
5. The foundational facts as offered by the rival
pleadings would provide the back-drop of the lingering
debate. The respondent had joined the Army service under
the Union of India on 06.4.1999 being awarded medical
category of "AYE" and according to him after undergoing G
rigorous medical examinations as prescribed. He, thereafter,
underwent initial military training at JAK Rifles Centre,
Jabalpur whereafter he was posted at No. 5 JAK Rifles at
Amritsar on 5.3.2000. One day he fell unconscious in the
course of cross country practice in the unit premises and H
198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 6 S.C.R.

A had to be shifted to Military Hospital, Amritsar where he was
treated for his ailment. The Medical Board that was set up for
his examination lowered his category from "AYE" to "CEE"
temporary w.e.f. April, 2000. The respondent has pleaded that
subsequent to his discharge from the hospital he was detained
B for duties at Kargil. He availed leave as was granted thereafter,
to join later at his transit Camp at Chandigarh. As admitted by
him, while on duty, he again fell to the same illness and had to
be hospitalized. The Review Medical Board, after examining
him, placed him in category "BEE" permanent for the first
C disability and category "CEE" temporary for the second
disability as mentioned therein. On his discharge from the
hospital, the respondent was sent to JAK Rifles, Jabalpur.
Though he applied for sheltered appointment, the same was
not entertained. It was soon thereafter that he was invalided
0
from service on being adjudged unsuitable, by the invaliding
Medical Board which assessed his disability percentage as
20% qua the first disability; and 20% for the second disability;
summing upto 40% for both the diseases. The Board thus
E recommended that he be invalided out of Army service which,
in fact, was given effect to on 01.1.2002. He unsuccessfully
appealed against this decision before the higher authorities.
His claim for disability pension was also rejected on the ground
that the disabilities detected in him were neither attributable
F to the Army service nor could get aggravated therefrom.
Contending that the decision to board him out of service and
the denial of disability pension otherwise payable to him under
the relevant rules, was illegal and arbitrary, the respondent
invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court of Jam mu and
G Kashmir at Jam mu for its remedial intervention.

6. The appellants in their reply apart from the preliminary
objection to the maintainability of the assailment, in essence
pleaded that having regard to the respondent's short service
H profile which demonstrated that for a major part thereof he had
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. MANJEET SINGH 199
[AMITAVA ROY, J.]

remained hospitalized during the training and thereafter, the A
diseases diagnosed could neither to be attributable to the
Army service nor comprehended to be aggravated thereby.
While admitting that the respondent had joined the Army service
on 06.04.1999 and that on the completion of the basic military
training he was posted at 5, JAK Riffles on 04.03.2000, the B
Union of India set out in details, the particulars of the periods
during which the respondent had remained hospitalized for
treatment. According to it, the official record did reveal that he
remained under medical treatment being hospitalized for the

is. i- -- -
periods as hereunder: C
r·--- -·------ . ---- --· -----
Period of Name of the Hospltal Diagnosed disease
I No. Hospitalization

~
24.03.2000 to Military Hospital, Generalised Tonic-
29.03.2000
-·--- ·-----
Amritsar
- -- --
-
___ ,, ___ -- Clo ni c Seizure
. --· - . -- ... ·- .... D
, 30.03.2000 to Command Hospital Generalised Tonic-
I b. ; 12.04.2000 (Western Command) Clonic Seizure
Chandimandir Military
I Hospital, Amritsar

c. 12.12.2001 Military Hospital, Neurotic Depression
to5.02.2001 Amritsar Generalised Tonic- E
Clonic Seizure( old)
-- . ·---- -- ----· ---- - . -· --- ------ ---·
d. 20.3.2001 to Military Hospital, Generalised Tonic-
29.3.2001 Jabalpur Clonic Seizure
I
Neurotic Depression
(ICD) 300 (Relapse)
e. 30. 7.2001 to Military Hospital, Generalised Tonic- F
I 31.8.2001 Jabalpur Clonic Seizure
I
Neurotic Depression
(ICD) 300

That based on such state of health of the respondent, G
he was placed in low medical category "CEE" (temporary)
w.e.f. 11.4.2000 to 10.10.2000 and thereafter in the low
medical category "BEE" (permanent) w.e.f. 11.10.2000, was
mentioned as well. It was stated further that the respondent
was eventually lowered to the medical category S-3(T-24) H .
200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 6 S.C.R.

A "CEE" (temporary) w.e.f. 3.02.2001.

7. The Union authorities reiterated that this down
grading of the medical category was in view of the diagnosed
disease i.e. Generalised Tonic Clonic Seizure-345 and
B Neurotic Depression (ICD)300. It was admitted that though
the respondent was willing to continue in sheltered appointment,
the same being not available qua his medical category, he
was discharged from Army service on medical grounds under
the relevant provisions of the Army Rules 1954 w.e.f.
C 31.12.2001 and was finally struck off from the strength of the
Army service w.e.f.1.1.2002.

8. Prior thereto, the Release Medical Board held on
30.8.2001 at Military Hospital, Jabalpur assessed the
D disability Generalised Tonic Clonic Seizure-345 at 20% for
2 years, disability Neurotic Depression (ICD)300 at 11-14%
for 2 years and the composite assessment of disability at 20%.
The Union of India in its reply did categorically state that the
Medical Board was of the opinion that the disabilities of the
E respondent were neither attributable to nor aggravated by the
Army service and were instead constitutional in nature.
According to it, though monetary benefits as allowable under
the relevant rules were released to the respondent, his claim
for disability pension was rejected being impermissible.
F
9. That the departmental appeals filed by the
respondent had been rightly rejected as his constitutional
disorder was neither attributable to nor aggravated by Army
service, disentitling him thereto as per para 173 of the
G Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (part-1) (for short
hereinafter also referred to as "Regulations") was
emphatically underlined. It was clarified as well that at the
time of entry in service, it was not possible to conduct
complete medical examination in order to detect dormant
H diseases and that the tests undertaken were factually clinical
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. MANJEET SINGH 201
[AMITAVA ROY, J.]

in nature to ascertain physical fitness. Thus according to the A
Union, any disease of genetic or hereditary origin was likely to
go undetected at the time of recruitment.

10. The learned Single Judge on an appraisal of the
contemporaneous facts and the documents available on B
record alongwith Regulation 173 of the Regulations and
paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 7(b) of Appendix 11 thereto returned
a finding that the invaliding Medical Board having failed to
record reasons that the disease could not be detected on
medical examination at the time of entry in service and that C
the same could not have aggravated during the course of
his employment, its bare conclusion that those were
constitutional in nature, was not in compliance of the
Regulations. The learned Single Judge held that as the
disability of the respondent was assessed at 20%, he was D
entitled to disability pension and as a consequence, quashed
the orders to the contrary and directed the Union of India and
its authorities to grant disability pension to him from the date
he was discharged from service. Time limit of four months
was also outlined for the completion of the exercise, failing E
which it was ordered that the respondent would be entitled to
interest@7.5% p.a.

11. The Intra-Court appeal did also meet the same fate,
the Division Bench having wholly endorsed the determination F
made by the learned Single Judge. It did further base its
eventual decision on the judgment of that Court in LPA (SW)
212/2006, Union of India and Others vs. Ravinder Kumar.

12. Mr. Patwalia, ·learned Addi. Solicitor General G
appearing on behalf of Union of India has insistently argued
that the conclusions recorded by the High Court at both the
levels are patently erroneous being dehors the recorded facts
and the supporting documents, besides being incompatible
with the relevant rules and regulations governing the issue H
202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 6 S.C.R.

A of disability pension payable to a member of the Army service
on being boarded out therefrom on the ground of disability.
Apart from contending that the decision in Union of India &
Others vs Ravinder Kumar (Supra), on which the Division
Bench of the High Court had placed reliance had been
B overturned, the learned Addi. Solicitor General maintained that
as the respondent during his short tenure was mostly lodged
in the hospital for his treatment for the disease for which he
was invalided from service, it is patent that the same could
not either be attributable to Army service or construed to have
C been aggravated thereby.

13. Mr. Patwalia has urged that the essential pre-
requisites for grant of disability pension i.e. attributability of
the respondent's disease to the Army service or aggravation
D thereof being non-existent in the case in hand, he was not
entitled thereto and therefore, the finding to the contrary is
repugnant to the relevant rules and regulations. Drawing the
attention of this Court, inter alia, to paragraph 7(b) of
Appendix II to the Regulations, the learned Addi. Solicitor
E General has maintained that the Medical Board having
unequivocally opined that the respondent's diseases
"Gerenalised Tonic Clonic Seizure and Neurotic Depression"
were constitutional in nature and thus he was disentitled to
F disability pension, the impugned decision is clearly not
sustainable in law and on facts. Without prejudice to this
plea, Mr. Patwalia has urged that in case this finding of the
Medical Board does not find favour with this Court for want
of adequate reasons. It is a fit case for remand to it (Medical
G Board) for an appropriate speaking opinion. To buttress his
contentions, he placed reliance on the following decisions
of this Court:

(1) Secretary, Ministry of Defence & Others vs. A.V.
Damodaran(Dead) through LRs. & Others -reported in
H
UNION OF·INDIA & ORS. v. MANJEET SINGH 203
[AMITAVA ROY, J.]

(2009)9 sec 140 A

(2) Union of India & Others vs. Jujhar Singh -reported in
(2011)1 sec 735

(3) Dharamvir Singh vs. Union of India &Others -reported
B
in (2013) 1 sec 316

(4) Veer Pal Singh vs. Secretary, Ministry of Defence -
reported in (2013) 8 sec 83 and

(5) Civil Appeal No. 1837/2009 (d/o/d 23.5.2012). C
Union of India & Anr. Vs Ravinder Kumar

14. Per Contra, Mr. Chib has assiduously asserted
that as the concurrent determinations made successively
by the High Court are based on a threadbare scrutiny of the o
relevant facts and the provisions of the law involved, no
interference therewith is warranted. Emphatically contending
that the diseases diagnosed on the eve of the respondent's
discharge from Army service had been acquired by him in the
course of his tenure, short though, and was thus clearly E
attributable thereto, the denial of disability pension to him was
clearly illegal, high handed, arbitrary and discriminatory.
According to Mr. Chib on a combined consideration of the
relevant provisions of the Regulations and the Appendix II,
containing "Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensioners F
Awards 1982" (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") and
the "Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pension), 2002",
(hereinafter referred to as the "General Principles"), it being
irrefutable that the respondent was entitled to disability
pension thereunder, the High Court was perfectly justified G
in affirming the same. Pleading in particular that the Medical
Board had failed to record any reason whatsoever in support
of its conclusion that either the disease detected or the
qisability consequent thereupon was neither attributable to H
Army service nor aggravated thereby, he urged that the
204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 6 S.C.R.

A respondent could not have been denied disability pension on
the vague remark that the said diseases were constitutional in
nature. According to Mr. Chib, the Medical Board having failed,
without any justification to record the reasons in support of its
conclusion that the diseases were constitutional in nature, the
B very basis of denial of disability pension to the respondent
had been rendered non est. According to-learned counsel, the
relevant rules and regulations are to be essentially construed
and interpreted liberally and in the realistic perspectives and
not pedantically to facilitate effectuation of the purpose thereof.
C Mr. Chib has drawn sustenance for his pleas from the decision
of this Court in Civil Appeal No: 2904 of 2011 Union of India &
Anr. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. disposed of on 13.2.2015.

15. The pleaded assertions and the arguments based
D thereon have received our due consideration. It is
undisputed that soon after the respondent had joined the
service on 6.4.1999 having been adjudged to be fully fit
therefor, following a rigorous medical test, he fell ill and had
to be hospitalized where he was diagnosed in due course, to
E be afflicted by (1) "Generalised Tonic Clonic Seizure" and (2)
"Neurotic Depression". It is a matter of record that the
respondent had to be hospitalized on more than one occasion
during his short tenure ranging from 8.4.1999 to 1.1.2002
F when he was invalided from service. Intermittently, as the
chart of his medical treatment as set out in the reply of the
appellants reveals, he had actively served in all, for a period
of about one year. That he was thus mostly under treatment
for the above two disabilities during his stint with the
G appellants, is undeniable. Be that as it may, the sustainability
of the denial of disability pension to him has to be essentially
tested on the touch-stone of the compliance of the relevant
Rules and Regulations. Apt, it would thus be to advert to the
relevant provisions thereof at the threshold. Undoubtedly the
H guiding course in this regard have been outlined in Regulation
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. MANJEET SINGH 205
[AMITAVA ROY, J.)

173, Rule 5, 9 and 14 in particular of the Rules as well as paras A
7,8 and 9 of the "General Principles". Expedient it would be
thus to set out these provisions for ready reference.

Regulation 173 which deals with primary conditions
for the grant of pension reads as under: B

"173. Primary conditions for the grant of disability
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 c
is attributable to or aggravated by Army service and is
assessed at 20 per cent or over. The question whether
a disability is attributable to or aggravated by Army
service shall be determined under the rule in Appendix
!J.." D
Rule 5, 9 and 14 of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty
Pensionary Awards, 1982 reads as under:

"5. The approach to the question of entitlement
to casualty pensionary awards and evaluation. of E
disabilities shall be based on the following
presumptions:

Prior to and during service
F
(a) 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.
G
(b) In the event of his subsequently being
discharged from service on medical grounds any
determination in his health, which has taken place is
due to service."
H
206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 6 S.C.R.

A "9. Onus of proof: - The claimant shall not be
called upon to prove the conditions of entitlements. He/
She will receive the benefit of anv reasonable doubt.
Tl 1is benefit will be given more liberally to the claimants
in field/afloat service cases."
B
"14. Diseases.- In respect of diseases. the
following rule will be observed -

(a) Cases in which it is established that
c conditions of Army service did not determine or
contribute to the onset of the disease but influenced
the subsequent courses of the disease will fall for
acceptance on the basis of aggravation.

(b) A disease which has led to an individual's
D
discharae 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 Army service. However,
if medical opinion holds. for reasons to be stated. that
E the disease could not have been detected on medical
examination prior to acceptance for service. the disease
will not be d&emed to have arisen during service.

(c) If a disease is accepted as having arisen in
service, it must also be established that the conditions
F of Army service determined or contributed to the onset
of the disease and that the conditions were due to the
circumstances of duty in Army service."

(emphasis supplied)
G
Chapter - II of the Guide to Medical Officers (Military
Pension), 2002 which sets out the "Entitlement: General
Principles", Paras, 7, 8 and 9 of the guidelines read as under:

H "7. Evidentiary value is attached to the record of a
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. MANJEET SINGH 207
[AMITAVA ROY, J.]

member's condition at the commencement of service, A
and such record has, therefore, to be accepted unless
any different conclusion has been reached due to the
inaccuracy of the record in a particular case or
otherwise. Accordingly, if the disease leading to
member's invalidation out of service or death while in B
service, was not noted in a medical report at the
commencement of service. the inference would be that
the disease arose during the period of member's Army
service. It may be that the inaccuracy or
incompleteness of service record on entry in service c
was due to a non-disclosure of the essential facts by
the member e.g. pre-enrolment history of an injury or
disease like epilepsy, mental disorder, etc. It may also
be that owing to latency or obscurity of the symptoms, a
D
disability escaped detection on enrolment. Such lack
of recognition may affect the medical categorisation of
the member on enrolment and/or cause him to perform
dtJties harmful to his condition. Again, there may
occasionally be direct evidence of the contraction of a E
disability, otherwise than by service. In all such cases,
though the disease cannot be considered to have been
caused by service, the question of aggravation by
subsequent service conditions will need examination.
F
The following are some of the diseases which ordinarily
escape detection on enrolment:

(a) Certain congenital abnormalities which are latent
and only discoverable on full investigation e.g.
' G
Congential defect of Spine, Spina bifida, Sacralistaion,

(b) Certain familial and hereditary diseases e.g.
Haemophilia, Congential Syphilis,
Haemoglobinopathy. H
208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 6 S.C.R.

A (c) Certain diseases of the heart and blood vessels e.g.
Coronary Atherosclerosis, Rheumatic Fever.

(d) Diseases which may be undetectable by physical
examination on enrolment, unless adequate history is
B given at the time by the member e.g. Gastric and
Duodenal Ulcers, Epilepsy, Mental Disorders, HIV
Infections.

(e) Relapsing forms of mental disorders which have
c intervals of normality.

(f} Diseases which have periodic attacks e.g. Bronchial
Asthma, Epilepsy, Csom, etc.

8. The question whether the invalidation ordeath ofa
D member has resulted from service conditions, has to
be judged in the light of the record of the member's
condition on enrolment as noted in service documents
and of all other available evidence both direct and
indirect.
E
Jn addition to any documentary evidence relative to the
member's condition to entering the service and during
service, the member must be carefully and closely
questioned on the circumstances which Jed to the
F advent of his disease, the duration, the family history,
his pre-service history, etc. so that all evidence in
support or against the claim is elucidated. Presidents
of Medical Boards should make. this their personal
responsibility and ensure that opinions on attributabilitv.
G '
aggravation or otherwise are supported by cogent
reasons: the approving authority should also be
satisfied that this question has been dealt with in such
a way as to leave no reasonable doubt.

H 9. On the question whether any persisting
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. MANJEET SINGH 209
[AMITAVA ROY, J.]

deterioration has occurred, it is to be remembered that A
invalidation from service does not necessarily imply that
the member's health has deteriorated during service.
The disability may have been discovered soon after
joining and the member discharged in his own interest
in order to prevent deterioration. In such cases, there B
may even have been a temporary worsening during
service, but if the treatment given before discharge was
on grounds of expediency to prevent a recurrence, no
lasting damage was inflicted by service and there would
be no ground for admitting entitlement,. Again a c
member may have been invalided from service
because he is found so weak mentally that it is
impossible to make him an efficient soldier. This would
not mean that his condition has worsened during
D
service, but only that it is worse than was realised on
enrolment in the army. To sum up, in each case the
question whether any persisting deterioration on the
available evidence which will vary according to the type
of the disability, the consensus of medical opinion E
relating to the particular condition and the clinical
history."

The Regulation, Rules and General Principles
concededly are statutory in nature and thus F
uncompromisingly binding on the parties.

16. A conjoint reading of these prov1s1ons,
unassailably brings to the fore, a statutory presumption that
a member of the service governed thereby is presumed to
have been in sound medical condition at the entry, except as G
to the physical disability as recorded at that point of time and
that if he is subsequently discharged from service on the
ground of disability, any deterioration in his health has to be
construed to be attachable to his service. Not only the member H
210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 6 S.C.R.

A in such an eventuality, could not be called upon to prove the.
conditions of his entitlements, he would instead be entitled to
the any reasonable doubt with regard thereto. Regulation 173
in clear terms not only mandates that disability pension may
be granted to an individual invalided from service on account
B of disability which is attributable to and aggravated by Army
service and is assessed as 20%, it specifically provides as
well that the question as to whether such disability is attributable
to or aggravated by Army service is to be determined by the
Rules. Rule 14(b) in specific terms enjoins that a disease which
C 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 his acceptance for Army service. The exception to
this deduction is, only in the event of a medical opinion,
supported by reasons to the effect that the disease could not
0
have been detected on medical examination prior to
acceptance for service where11pon it would be deemed that
the disease had not arisen during service. The underlying
ordainment of these salutary provisions is patently supportive
E of the inference thatthe disease/disability for which a member
of a Army service is boarded out had been contracted by him
during his tenure unless the same is displaced by cogent,
coherent and persuasive reasons to be recorded by the
Medical Board as contemplated. Absence of such a
F presumption in favour of attributability to the Army service or
aggravation thereby, displaceable though, cannot be readily
assumed unless endorsed by contemporaneous records and
overwhelming reasons recorded by the invaliding Medical
Board to the contrary. The acknowledged primacy extended
G to the opinion of the Medical Board, and its views and
recommendations thus assuredly would have to be subject to
the hallowed objectives of the relevant provisions of the Rules,
Regulations and the General Principles laden with the
affirmative presumption in favour of the member of the service.
H Not only the manifest statutory intendment and the avowed
UNION OF INDIA & O~S: v. MANJEEJ SING,H 211
[AMITAVA ROY, J.]

purpose ofthese provisions cannot be disregarded, a realistic A
approach in deciphering the same has to be adopted. The
incident of invaliding a member of the Army service entails
curtailment of the normal tenure for his recorded disability to
the extent of 20% or more and thus in our own comprehension,
the disentitling requisites would have to be stringently B
construed. The decisive determinant as per the relevant
provisions of the Regulations, Rules and the General
Principles, is the attributability of the disability involved or
aggravation thereof to Army seryice. It cannot be gainsaid,
however, that there ought to be at least a casual and perceptible C
nexus between the two, but denial of disability pension would
be approvable, only ifthe disability by no means can be related
to the Army service. The burden to disprove the correlation of
the disability with the Army service has been cast on the
0
authorities by the Regulation, Rules and the General Principles
and thus, any inchoate, casual, perfunctory or vague approach
of the authorities would tantamount to non-conformance of the
letter and spirit thereof, consequently invalidating the decision
of denial. Though the causative factors for the disability have E
to be the rigor of the military conditions, no insensitive and
unpragmatic analysis of the relevant facts is envisaged so as
to render any of the imperatives in the Regulations, Rules and
General Principles otiose or nugatory. To the contrary, a
realistic, logical, rational and purposive scrutiny of the service F
and medical profile of the member concerned is peremptory
to sub-serve the true purport and purpose of these provisions.
To reiterate, invaliding a member from the service
presupposes truncation of his normal service tenure thus
adjudging him to be unsuitable therefor. The disability as G
weli has to exceed a particular percentage. The bearing of
the Army service as an aggravating factor qua even a
dormant and elusive constitutional or genetic disability in all
fact situations thus cannot be readily ruled out. Hence the
predqminant significance of the requirement of the reasons H
212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 6 S.C.R.

A to be recorded by the Medical Board and the
recommendations based thereon for boarding out a member
from service. As a· corollary, in absence of reasons to
reinforce the opinion that the disability is not attributable to
the Army service or is not aggravated thereby, denial of the
B benefit of disability pension would be illegal and indefensible.

17. The medical opinion in the instant case, as the
precursor of the invalidment of the respondent therefore
C needs to be assayed in this presiding statutory backdrop.

18. The opinion of the attending doctor on 09.08.2001
prior to the assessment made by the Medical Board discloses
that his was an old case of Neurotic Depression which came
D to be noticed first in December, 2000 when he complairted of
tension, weakness and inability to do work. It recorded further
that his psychiatric evaluation revealed depression, somatic
preoccupation and depressive cognition. Though it noted that
he was keen to serve further, his release was due to low
E medical category. It was mentioned as well that there was no
clear features of psychosis and sensorium as he ate and slept
well. He was recommended to be fit to be released from
service. A few excerpts of the proceedings of the Medical
Board would be of some advantage and are extracted
F hereinbelow.

"PARTI

PERSONAL STATEMENT
G

2. Give particulars of any diseases, \l"ounds or
injuries from which you are suffering

H
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. MANJEET SINGH 213
[AMITAVA ROY, J.]

I mness: Wound: ~rst S;;;rted
- -~ ------~-

Where treated -r-Ap-~~~imate A
[ in)Jrv I 1
dates and period
i treated

- - - ~~te
Place I
___J_ - ------.
122-03 ~fJOO·-
--~---

GENERAL 22.03.2000 AMRITSAR I MH AMRITSAR
·-
TONIC , ·to
CL ON IC I I
B
I I 27.03.2000
SEIZURE-345
i
NEUROTIC 18.12.2000 j CHANDIMANDIR I CH(WC) 12.12.2001 1

DEPRESSION- i I CHANDIMANDIR I
300
!
: I I

3. Did you suffer from any disability mentioned in c
question 2 or anything like it before joining the Armed
Forces? If so give details and dates. -No"

Part Ill which deals with opinion of the Medical
Board reads as under: D

"PARTlll

OPINOIN OF THE MEDICAL BOARD

1. Did the disability/ies exist before entering serviced? E
-No.

2. (a) In respect of each disability the Medical Board
on the evidence before it will express its views as to
whether:- F

(i) it is attributable to service during peace or
under filed service conditions; or

(ii) It has been aggravated thereby and remains
G
so: or

(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. H
214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 6 S.C.R.

A ~

Disability
'
A I B ic
I
GENERALISED TONIC INO NO !YES
CLONIC SEIZURE - 345 I

1·NE(JRciTIC DEPRESSION : Nb NO YES
B I -300 i
I I

(b) In respect of each disability shown as attributable
under 'A'. the Board should state fully, the specific
condition and period in service which caused the
C disability 182 =NA

(c) In respect of each disability shown as aggravated
under B the Board should state fully:-

(i) The specific condition and period in service which
D
aggravated the disability.

182= NA

(ii) Whether the effects of such aggravation still persist.
E
182 =NA
(iii) If the answer to (ii) is in the affirmative. whether
effect of aggravation will persist for a material period.

F 182 =NA
(d) In the case of a disability under C, the Board
should state what exactly in their opinion is the
caused thereof.
G
182 = Both disabilities are constitutional in nature
hence unconnected with Army service."

19. Eventually, the Board on the basis of the disabilities
H (1) "Generalised Tonic Clonic Seizure-345" and (2) "Neurotic
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. MANJEET SINGH 215
[AMITAVA ROY, J.)

Depression-300" did compute the composite disability of the A
respondent to be 20%.

20. Significantly, as would be evident from the above
quoted extracts, the respondent had on being queried during
his examination, denied to have been suffering from any of B
the disabilities at the time of joining the Army service.

21. Though as per Clause 2(a) of Part Ill, the Medical
Board was required to express its views on the aspects as
to whether the disabilities; c
(1') were attributable to service during peace or
under field service conditions;

(2) were aggravated thereby and remained to be
so; D

(3) were not connected with service;

and was required to state reasons with regard to each
of the disabilities of which its opinion was based, it merely E
recorded in the negative vis-a;vis the first two and in the
affirmative qua the third and abruptly concluded that both
the disabilities were constitutional in nature and hence
unconnected with Army service. No reason whatsoever was
cited by the Medical Board in support of this conclusion. On F
the contrary, its deduction that the disabilities were unrelated
to the Army service was founded only on the fact that those
were constitutional in nature and no other consideration or
reason whatsoever. That the opinion of the Medical Board
lacks in reasons, has been conceded too by the learned G
counsel for the appellants.

22. Be that as it may, adverting inter alia to Rule 14(b)
of the Rules, we are of the unhesitant opinion that reasons,
that the diseases could not be detected on medical H
216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 6 S.C.R.

A examination prior to acceptance in service, ought to have been
obligatorily recorded by the Medical Board sans whereof, the
respondent would be entitled to the benefit of the statutory
inference that the same had been contracted during service
or have been aggravated thereby. There is no reason
B forthcoming in the proceedings of the Medical Board, as to
why his disabilities eventually adjudged to be constitutional or
genetic in nature had escaped the notice of the authorities
concerned at the time of his acceptance for Army service. On
a comprehensive consideration of the Regulation, Rules and
C the General Principles as applicable, the service profile of the
respondent and the proceedings of the Medical Board, we
are constrained to hold that he had been wrongly denied the
benefit of disability pension. His tenure albeit short, during
which he had to be frequently hospitalized does not irrefutably
0
rule out the possibility, in absence of any reason recorded by
the Medical Board that the disability even assumed to be
constitutional or genetic, had not been induced or aggravated
by the arduous military conditions. The requirement of
E recording reasons is not contingent on the duration of the Army
service of the member thereof and is instead of peremptory
nature, failing which the decision to board him out would be
vitiated by an inexcusable infraction of the relevant statutory
provisions. Having regard to the letter and spirit of the
F Regulation, Rules and the General Principles, the prevailing
presumption in favour of a member of the Army service boarded
out on account of disability and the onus cast on the authorities
to displace the same, we are of the unhesitant opinion thatthe
denial of disability pension to the respondent in the facts and
G circumstances of the case, have been repugnant to the relevant
statutory provisions and thus cannot be sustained in law. The
determination made by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
at Jam mu is thus upheld on its own merit.

H 23. The authorities cited at the Bar though underline
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. MANJEET SINGH 217
[AMITAVA ROY, J.)

the primacy of the opinion of the Medical Board on the issue, A
however, do not relieve it of its statutory obligation to record
reasons as required. Necessarily, the decisions turn on their
own facts. With the provisions involved being common in view
of the uniformity in the exposition thereof, a dilation of the
adjudications is considered inessential. B

24. Though noticeably, the decision rendered in
LPA(SW) 212/2006; Union of India and Others vs. Ravinder
Kumar, as referred to in the impugned judgment, was reversed
by this Court in Civil Appeal No.1837/2009, we are of the C
respectful view that the same cannot be construed to be a ruling
relating to the essentiality of recording of reasons by the
Medical Board as mandated by the Regulations, Rules and
the Guiding Principles. This decision thus is of no determinative
relevance vis-a-vis the issues involved in the present appeal. D

25. The last in the line of the rulings qua the dissensus
has been pronounced in a batch of Civil Appeals led by Civil
Appeal No. 2904 of 2011; Union of India & Others vs. Rajbir
Singh in which this Court on an exhaustive and insightful E
exposition of t:1e aforementioned statutory provisio·ns had
observed with reference as well to the enunciations in
Dharamvir Singh vs. Union of India 2013(7) SCC 316, that
the provision for payment of disability pension is a beneficial
one and ought to be interpreted liberally so as to benefit F
those who have been boarded out from service, even if they
have not completed their tenure. It was observed that there
may indeed be cases where the disease is wholly unrelated
to Army service but to deny disability pension, it must
affirmatively be proved that the same had rrothing to do with G
such service. It was underlined that the burden to establish
disability would lie heavily upon the employer, for otherwise
the Rules raise a presumption that the deterioration in the
health of the member of the service was on account of Army H
218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 6 S.C.R.

A service or had been aggravated by it. True to the import of the
provisions, it was held that a soldier cannot be asked to prove
that the disease was contracted by him on account of Army
service or had been aggravated by the same and the
presumption continues in his favour till it is proved by the
B employer that the disease is neither attributable to nor
aggravated by Army service. That to discharge this burden,
a statement of reasons supporting the view of the employer is
the essence of the rules which would continue to be the guiding
canon in dealing with cases of disability pension was
C emphatically stated. As we respectfully, subscribe to the views
proclaimed on the issues involved in Dharamvir Singh (supra)
and Rajbir Singh( supra) as alluded hereinabove, for the sake
of brevity, we refrain from referring to the details. Suffice it to
state that these decisions do authoritatively address the issues
0
seeking adjudication in the present appeals and endorse the
view taken by us.

26. In the wake of the above, we hereby sustain the
impugned judgment and order. The appeals are dismissed.
E No costs.

Devika Gujral Appeals dismissed.