Back
1999 Supreme(Del) 198
High Court Of Delhi
MOHINDER SINGH (EX.SEPOY) - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil Writ 1479 of 1994
Decided On : 03/12/1999
S.M.HOODA, Y.D.NAGAR
The entitlement to disability pension under the Army Rules, 1954 is subject to the conditions that the disability is due to service, attributable to or aggravated by military service, and assessed at 20% or more.
Headnote:
DISABILITY PENSION - ARMY RULES, 1954 - RULE 13(3), RULE 173 - ENTITLEMENT RULES - RULE 9-E - PENSION REGULATIONS - RULE 173 - DISABILITY PENSION - ENTITLEMENT - COMPOSITE ASSESSMENT OF DISABILITY - DISABILITY DUE TO SERVICE - ATTRIBUTABLE TO OR AGGRAVATED BY MILITARY SERVICE - ASSESSMENT OF DISABILITY - CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS - AUTHORITY TO REJECT CLAIM FOR DISABILITY PENSION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a combatant soldier in the army, was invalidated out of service due to organic bladder neck obstruction and fracture proximal phalanx right index finger. The Medical Board assessed the disability at less than 20%, making him ineligible for disability pension under Rule 173 of the Pension Regulations. Petitioner challenged the rejection of his claim, arguing that the disabilities should be assessed compositely, resulting in a total disability of over 20%.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner's claim for disability pension was rightly rejected. The disability due to bladder neck obstruction was not attributable to or aggravated by military service, and the disability due to fracture proximal phalanx of the right index finger was less than 20%, the minimum requirement for disability pension. The court also held that the Controller of Defence Accounts had the authority to reject the claim for disability pension based on the Medical Board's assessment.
Issues: 1. Whether the disabilities should be assessed compositely to determine eligibility for disability pension. 2. Whether the disability due to bladder neck obstruction was attributable to or aggravated by military service. 3. Whether the Controller of Defence Accounts had the authority to reject the claim for disability pension.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Under Rule 9-E of the Entitlement Rules, where there are two or more disabilities due to service, the composite assessment of the degree of disablement is the arithmetical sum of their separate assessments. However, where the functional effects of the disabilities overlap, the composite assessment is reduced in proportion to the degree of overlapping. 2. The disability due to bladder neck obstruction was not attributable to or aggravated by military service, as per the findings of the Army Medical Board. 3. The Controller of Defence Accounts has the authority to reject a claim for disability pension based on the Medical Board's assessment.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
( 1 ) RULE D. B. had been issued in the present case on 26. 9. 1995 and the matter was directed to be listed on 1. 2. 1999. Counsel for the parties were heard and judgment was reserved. The matter was renotified for seeking clarifications on certain aspects on which counsel for the parties were again heard on 19. 2. 1999.
( 2 ) PETITIONER is aggrieved by the rejection of his claim for disability pension. Petitioner seeks a direction in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to grant disability pension with effect from 12. 1. 1989 alongwith interest on the arrears.
( 3 ) PETITIONER was enrolled as a combatant soldier in the army on 26. 12. 1981, after undergoing a medical examination. Petitioner s case is that due to rigours and hazards of military service life, ho developed a stomach disease in 1986 and was treated for the same in the military hospitals. Petitioner was found to have been suffering from "bladder neck obstruction" resulting in the thinning of urine stream. The Urologist of Army Hospital after investigation and test found it to be a case of organic bladder obstruction. The surgery of bladder neck obstruction was withheld and not recommended on account of fear of. retrograde ejaculation and young age of the petitioner. Petitioner was placed in lower medical category and, subsequently, was recommended for being invalidated out of service by the Medical Board. Petitioner was on leave before discharge, when he met with an accident with the door of the bus and his right-hand finger was crushed, which was later on operated in the military hospital, Delhi Cantt. Petitioner was invalidated out of service with effect from 12. 1. 1989 after being placed in low medical category (EEE-P) and having been found medically unfit for further service under Rule 13 (3) of the Army Rules. The diseases being "organic bladder neck obstruction" and "fracture proximal phalanx right index finger". The Medical Board constituted on 19. 12. 1988 at Military Hospital, Jabalpur, assessed the disability of the petitioner at less than 20 per cent. While the disability on account of bladder neck obstruction was assessed at 15 to 19 per cent, the disability on account of fracture proximal phalanx right index finger was assessed at 6 to 10 per cent.
( 4 ) THE respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner for disability pension relying on Rule 173 of the Pension Regulations since the disability requirement for being eligible for disability pension was disability of at least 20 per cent or more.
( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Hooda, has drawn the attention of the Court to Rule 9-E of the Entitlement Rules. The relevant extract is as under:-
"composite assessments-where there are two or more disabilities due to service: compensation will be based on the composite assessment of the degree of disablement. Generally speaking, when separate disabilities have entirely different functional effects, the composite assessment will be the arithmetical sum of their separate assessments. But where the functional effects of the disabilities overlap, the composite assessment will be reduced in proportion to the degree of overlapping. "
( 6 ) RELYING on the above Rule, Mr. Hooda submits that the total disability is to be reckoned by the arithmetical total of the disability, viz. (i) Disability on account of bladder neck obstruction at 15to 19 percent. plus (ii) Disability on account of fracture proximal phalanx right index finger at 6 to 10 percent,
( 7 ) THERE is merit in this contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, in as much as, the disease of bladder neck obstruction and fracture proximal phalanx of right index finger are disabilities having entirely different functional effects and, therefore, undercomposite assessment, the arithmetical total of the two disabilities has to be reckoned, which will make it over 20 per cent.
( 8 ) MR. Hooda further submitted that since the accident resulting in the fracture of
