2009 Supreme(J&K) 422
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.
Iqbal Mohd. - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondent
SWP No. 2853/2001, CMP No. 2851/2001
Decided On : 12 October, 2009
Advocate For Appellant: C.M. Koul
Advocate For Respondent: Tashi Rabstan
The importance of the Medical Board's opinion in determining the connection of the disease with military service and the application of the Army Pension Regulations, 1961.
Headnote:
disability pension - military service - The court quashed the communication rejecting the petitioner's disability pension and directed the respondents to consider the case for granting disability pension, citing the importance of the Medical Board's opinion and the provisions of the Army Pension Regulations, 1961.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought disability pension after being discharged on medical grounds due to deteriorating eyesight incurred during active service. The Medical Board opined that the disease was not connected with service, leading to the rejection of the petitioner's claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order was illegal and passed in violation of the Army Pension Regulations, 1961. It quashed the order and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for granting disability pension within three months.
Issues: The key issue was whether the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's disability pension was passed rightly and whether the petitioner was entitled to disability pension.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of the Medical Board's opinion in determining the connection of the disease with military service. It cited the provisions of the Army Pension Regulations, 1961, and the interpretation of the Apex Court judgment in Union of India and ors. v. Keshar Singh to support its decision.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for granting disability pension within three months.
2. Respondents have filed the reply and resisted the petition. Precisely, the case of the petitioner is that he came to be appointed as Sepoy by the respondents and was posted at Baroda (Gujrat) in 886 DSC Palatoon in 1993-94, came to discharged. He applied for disability pension, came to be rejected vide impugned communication.
3. It is specifically averred that the petitioner came to be discharged on medical grounds. It is further averred that while performing duties at Baroda, difficult weather conditions, long and uninterrupted period, has adversely affected his eye sight. He was operated upon at Ahmadabad by Dr.D.S.Malik-Doctor of the Department. That operation was not successful one thereby his condition deteriorated. The petitioner has incurred disability while in active service.
4. The respondents have stated that the Medical Board opined that disease incurred by the petitioner was not connected with the service and the case of the petitioner for grant of disability pension was rejected.
5. The short question involved in the writ petition is whether the impugned order came to be passed rightly and whether the petitioner is entitled to disability pension?
6. It is beaten law of the land that Army Personal is entitled to disability pension if the disease (s) is/are incurred during active service, opinion of the Medical Board assumes great importance. The respondents were directed to produce the record, came to be produced today in the open Court.
7. Part III, compilation-opinion of the Medical Board contained so many clauses. It is opined that the disability/disabilities did not exist before entering into service. The Medical Board has not mentioned in the opinion that disease (s) could not be deducted by it prior to acceptance of the petitioners for service. But what is recorded in the opinion is that disease (s) are not connected with service.
8. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was having such disease before his entry into service. It is also not the case of the respondents that it was not possible for the Medical Board to deduct such disease at the time when the petitioner entered into service. Thus, it can be said that the petitioner has incurred the disease (s) during the active service. My this view is fortified by the Apex Court judgment in case titled Union of India and ors. v. Keshar Singh. reported as 2007 AIRSCW 2760. It is apt to reproduce paras 3 and 5 herein:-
"In support of the appeal learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that both learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have lost sight of para 7 (c). Both 7(b) and 7 (c) have to be read together. They are as follows:-
"7(b) A disease which has led to an individuals discharge or death will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service if no note of it was made at the time of the individuals acceptance for military service. However, if medical opinion holds for reasons to be stated, that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior to acceptance for service the disease will not be deemed to have arisen during service. 7 (c) if a disease is accepted as having arisen in service, it must also be established that the conditions of military service determined or contributed to the onset of the disease and that the conditions were due to the circumstances of duty in military service."
5. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that ordinarily if a disease has led to the discharge of individual it shall ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service if no note of it was made at the time of individuals acceptance for military service. An exception, however, is carved out, i.e. if medical opinion holds for reasons to be stated that the disease cou