SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(SC) 183

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.
EX. GNR. LAXMANRAM POONIA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. – APPELLANT
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2633 OF 2017
Decided On : 22-02-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :- Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Jaideep Singh, Ms. Ritu Apurva, Ms. Heena Khan, Ms. Tanuja Patra, Advocates.
For the Respondents:- Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Opinion of Medical Board has to be given due weight and credence but opinion of Medical Board cannot be read in isolation.

Headnote:Service Law – Disability Pension – Rule 13(3)(iii) of Army Rules, 1954 – Regulation 173 of Pension Regulations for Army, 1961 – Tribunal dismissed application filed by appellant holding that disability being constitutional in nature is not connected with Military Service – His disability was assessed at 60% for life but was viewed as neither attributable to nor aggravated by Military Service – Held, opinion of Medical Board, which is an expert body has to be given due weight and credence – But opinion of Medical Board cannot be read in isolation – It has to be read in consonance with Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 and General Rules of Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pensions) 1982 – Appellant was not suffering from any disease/disability at the time of entering into Military Service – It was on respondent to show that appellant was suffering from schizophrenia at the time of entering into service by producing any document viz. medical prescription – In absence of any note in service record in this regard at the time of joining Military Service, Medical Board should have called for the service records and looked into same but that was not done – It has to be presumed that disability of appellant bore a casual connection with service conditions – Impugned order set aside and respondents directed to pay disability pension to wife and other substituted legal heirs of deceased as per Rules. (Paras 4, 9, 18, 20, 22, 23 and 24)

       Facts of Case:

       Instant appeal arises out of order passed by Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Jaipur, Rajasthan in O.A. thereby declining award of disability pension to appellant. Tribunal also dismissed M.A. filed by appellant seeking leave to appeal under Section 31 of Armed Forces Tribunal Act.

       Findings of Court:

       Tribunal did not examine case at hand in light of Army Pension Regulations, 1961, Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 and General Rules of Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pensions) 2002 and, therefore, impugned order cannot be sustained. Applying the principles of Dharamvir Singh's case and Rajbir Singh's case, it has to be presumed that disability of appellant bore a casual connection with service conditions.

       Result : Appeal allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

R. Banumathi J.

This appeal arises out of the order dated 21.03.2014 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Jaipur, Rajasthan in O.A. No. 200 of 2010, thereby declining award of disability pension to the appellant. The Tribunal vide order dated 23.02.2016 also dismissed M.A. No. 390 of 2015 filed by the appellant seeking leave to appeal under Section 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act.

2. The facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are as follows:- The appellant was enrolled in the Indian Army on 14.09.2005. His basic military training was convened at Army Air Defence Centre Nasik Road Camp, commencing from 16.09.2005 and after completion of training, he was posted at 27 AD Regiment for further service. It is the case of the appellant that on the eve of Diwali Festival in November, 2007, he was overburdened with work due to scarcity of staff. Due to continuous restless duty hours for several days, he suffered hypertension resulting in lack of sleep and hunger. Ultimately, he requested the Commanding Officer of his Unit to sanction him leave considering his critical condition. However, instead of granting leave, the Commanding Officer got him admitted in 174 Military Hospital on 11.11.2007, acknowledging the critical condition of the appellant. The Doctor diagnosed the appellant to be suffering from acute schizophrenia like psychotic disorder. The appellant was discharged from 174 Military Hospital on 14.03.2008. Thereafter, he was shifted to Military Hospital Chandimandir and was admitted to psychiatric ward on 28.08.2008. He was subjected to a Military Board held at 174 Military Hospital for his recategorisation. After some time, he was granted sick leave for a few days. However, he was again admitted to 174 Military Hospital on 15.02.2009, and was also subjected to a Medical Board and thereafter, he was discharged from the hospital and was sent to his Unit.

3. As per the appellant, he was again entrusted with hard duty on 02.05.2009 and was also compelled to work at night hours, because of which the disease so detected again aggravated. Ultimately, he had to be admitted to Command Hospital Chandimandir on 05.05.2009, from where he got discharged on 12.06.2009. He was again admitted to Command Hospital Chandimandir on 10.07.2009, from where he was discharged on 06.10.2009. He was brought before a duly constituted Invaliding Medical Board on 09.09.2009 to assess the cause and degree of disablement. The Invaliding Medical Board opined that he was suffering from `acute Schizophrenia like psychotic disorder'. Medical Board further opined that the disability being constitutional in nature is not connected with Military Service. His disability was assessed at 60% for life but was viewed as neither attributable to nor aggravated by Military Service. Ultimately, he was invalided out of service with effect from 07.10.2009 under Rule 13(3)(iii) of the Army Rules, 1954. His claim for grant of disability pension was forwarded to the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) Allahabad, which was rejected vide order dated 02.07.2010 on the ground that the disability suffered by the applicant is neither attributable to nor aggravated by Military Service.

4. The appellant challenged the order dated 02.07.2010 by filing an application before the Tribunal seeking disability pension. The Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the appellant holding that the disability being `constitutional' in nature is not connected with Military Service. His disability was assessed at 60% for life; but was viewed as neither attributable to nor aggravated by Military Service. The Tribunal specifically held that though the Invaliding Medical Board categorically opined that he was suffering from `Acute Schizophrenia like psychotic disorder', the disability of the applicant being constitutional in nature cannot be considered to be connected with Military Service. Thus, holding that there was no casual connection between disablem



















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top