DHARAMVIR SINGN vs. UNION OF INDIA .

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4949  OF 2013 (arising out of SLP(C)No. 6940 of 2010) DHARAMVIR SINGH        …. APPELLANT VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.               ….RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. Leave granted.    2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against  st the   judgment   dated   31   July,   2009   in   LPA   No.26   of   2004  passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachanl  JUDGMENT Pradesh,   Shimla   whereby   the   Division   Bench   allowed   the  appeal preferred by the Union of India and set aside the  th judgment dated 20   May, 2004 passed by the learned Single  Judge in Civil Writ Petition No.660 of 2004. 3. The questions involved in this case are: Page 1 2 (i) Whether a member of Armed Forces can be presumed  to   have   been   in   sound   physical   and   mental   condition  upon   entering   service   in   absence   of   disabilities   or  disease noted or recorded at the time of entrance.

pension.  4. The factual matrix of the case is as follows: The appellant was enrolled as Sepoy in the Corps of  th Signals   of   the   Indian   Army   on   15   June,   1985.   Having  rendered about 9 years of service in Indian Army he was  boarded out of the service with effect from Ist April, 1994  on the ground of 20% permanent disability as he was found  suffering   from   “Genrealised   seizure   (Epilepsy)".     The  Medical Board of Army opined that the "disability is not  related to military service".   On the basis of disability  JUDGMENT report, no disability pension was granted to him and when  the   appellant   preferred   representation   the   respondents  th rejected such prayer by an order dated 12   December, 1995  on the ground that the disability suffered by the appellant  was neither attributable to nor aggravated by the military  service.  Page 2 3 5. The   appellant   approached   the   High   Court   of   Himachal  Pradesh   in   Civil   Writ   Petition   No.660   of   2004   seeking   a  direction to respondents to grant disability pension with 

nothing on record to show that the appellant was suffering  from any disease at the time of his initial recruitment in  the Indian Army held that the disease would be deemed to be  attributable   to   or   aggravated   by   the   Army   services.  Therefore,   in   terms   of   Regulation   173   of   Pension  Regulations for the Army, 1961 the appellant is eligible  for disability pension.   Learned Single Judge allowed the  writ   petition   and   directed   the   respondents   to   grant  disability   pension   to   the   appellant   as   per   rules   with  JUDGMENT effect from the date he was invalidated out of service and  to pay the entire arrears of pension within three months  else they shall be liable to pay interest on such arrears  at the rate of 9% per annum. 6. The   Union   of   India   challenged   the   decision   of   the  learned Single Judge before the Division Bench of the High  Court of Himachal Pradesh in LPA No.26 of 2004. On behalf  Page 3 4 of   the   Union   of   India   it   was   contended   that  disease“generalized   seizure"   was   constitutional   in   nature  and the same has not been found by the Re­Survey Medical 

taken   into   consideration   the   relevant   law   while   allowing  the petition.   The Division Bench referring to a judgment  of   this   Court   in   Union   of   India   and   others   vs.   Keshar  Singh, (2007) 12 SCC 675,  and Rule 7 as noticed in the said  judgment held as follows and set aside the order passed by  the learned Single Judge:  “ The   respondent   was   discharged   from   the  military after being placed in Low Medical  Category (CEE). The Re­survey Medical Board  had opined the disability of the respondent  neither attributable nor aggravated military  service.   He   was   found   suffering   from  ‘generalised   seizure’.   The   learned   Single  Judge has purportedly referred to paragraph  7(b)   of   Appendix­IIas   referred   to   in  Regulation 48, 173 and 185 while coming to  the conclusion that the respondent was not  suffering   from   the   disease   on   account   of  which he was invalidated out of the service  at   the   time   of   his   initial   recruitment   in  the Indian Army. However, the learned Single  Judge has omitted to take note of paragraph  7(c)   of   Appendix­II   as   referred   to   in  Regulation   48,   173   and   185   of   the   Pension  Regulations for the Army, 1961(Part­I). JUDGMENT Page 4 5

“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 read as follows: “7(b)   A   disease   which   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   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. JUDGMENT 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.” Page 5 6

In   view   of   the   legal   position   referred   to  above and the fact that the Medical Board's  opinion was clearly to the effect that the  illness suffered by the respondent was not  attributable   to   the   military   service,   both  the   learned   Single   Judge   and   the   Division  Bench were not justified in their respective  conclusion.   The respondent is not entitled  to disability pension. However, on the facts  and   circumstances   of   the   case,   payment  already   made   to   the   respondent   by   way   of  disability   pension   shall   not   be   recovered  from him.  The appeal is allowed but in the  circumstances   without   any   order   as   to  costs.” JUDGMENT The disease developed by the petitioner i.e.  ‘generalised   seizore'   is   constitutional   in  Page 6 7

Consequently,   in   view   of   the   observation  made hereinabove, the Letters Patent Appeal  is allowed. The judgment of learned Single  Judge is set aside. No costs.” 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the  Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 have  been made effective w.e.f. Ist January, 1982 and the set of  JUDGMENT rules is required to be read in conjunction with the Guide  to Medical Officers (Military Pension), 1980. Referring to  Rule 423(c) it was submitted that the cause of disability  or   death   resulting   from   a   disease   will   be   regarded   as  attributable   to   service   when   it   is   established   that   the  disease   arose   during   service   and   the   conditions   and  circumstances of duty in the Armed Forces determined and  Page 7 8 contributed to the onset of the disease.   A disease which  has   led   to   an   individual's   discharge   or   death   will  ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service if no note 

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.  8. Reliance was placed on Rules 5,6,9 and 14 to show that  the   appellant   was   entitled   to   the   benefit   and   the  respondents ought to have given the same in consideration  of the said rules.   It was further contended that it will  be   for   the   service   authorities   to   make   all   practical  JUDGMENT investigation to establish the alleged fact, calling upon  the claimant, if necessary to assist and to show that the  employee was suffering from disability or disease at the  time of appointment and such disease is not attributable to  or aggravated by service.  Page 8 9 9. Per contra, according to the respondents, the question  is   no   more   res   integra   having   settled   by   this   Court   in  Keshar Singh (supra) .

India submitted that in each case when disability pension  is sought for and claim is made it must be affirmatively  established as a matter of fact as to whether the disease  is  due to military service  or that  it was aggravated  by  military   service   which   contributed   to   invalidation   from  service. According to him, in the present case, the Medical  Board has clearly opined that the invalidating disease‘left  partial motor seizure with secondary generalisation' is not  related   to   military   service.     The   Medical   Board   having  examined the appellant and having taken into consideration  JUDGMENT all evidence before it once submitted its opinion, it is  binding on the parties.  It was contended that the opinion  of the Board has been given by the medical experts approved  by   a   superior   Medical   Officer,   Brigadier.   Unless   the  primary   condition   in   Regulation   173   is   satisfied   the  appellant cannot derive advantage. He also placed reliance  on   Rules   6,8   14(c)   and   17   of   “Entitlement   Rules   for  Page 9 10 Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982” and referred to decisions  of this Court to suggest that the appellant is not entitled  to disability pension in view of the opinion of the Medical 

st 11. In   the   impugned   judgment   dated   31   July,   2009,   the  Division Bench of the High Court placed reliance on Rules  7(a),   7(b)   and   7(c)   which   was   noticed   by   this   Court   in  Keshar Singh (supra).   In     Keshar Singh(supra) , a judgment  of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court granting  disability pension was challenged before this Court.   In  the said matter paragraph 7(b) of Appendix­II referred to  in Regulations 48, 173 and 185 of the 'Pension Regulations  for the Army, 1961'. In support of the appeal before this  Court in   Keshar Singh(supra)   learned Additional Solicitor  JUDGMENT General contended that the Division Bench of the High Court  has lost sight of Para 7(c) and both the paragraphs 7(b)  and 7(c) have to be read together. The relevant portion of  the   judgment   of   this   Court   in   Keshar   Singh   (supra)   is  quoted hereunder: 2.   Background   facts   giving   rise   to   the  “ present dispute is as follows: Page 10 11

JUDGMENT 3.   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  read as follows" “7   (b)   A   disease   which   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   the   individual's   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  Page 11 12

before this Court in the present case, it is accepted that  old   Rules   7(a),   (b)   and   7(c)   of   the   erstwhile  Rules/Regulations   were   taken   into   consideration   by   this  Court in  Keshar Singh (supra)  which has  since been revised  by   Rule   14   of   revised   ‘Entitlement   Rules   for   Casualty  Pensionary Awards, 1982'. For the said reason, we are not  relying   on   or   referring   to   Rule   7(b)   and   7(c)   of   the  erstwhile Rules. According to the respondents, Rule 14(a),  14(b),   14(c)   and   14(d)   of   the   "Entitlement   Rules   for  JUDGMENT Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 1982"  as amended vide Government of India, Ministry of Defence  th letter No.1(1)/81/D(Pen­C) dated 20  June, 1996 needs to be  taken into consideration along with the other provisions of  Entitlement Rules, 1982.  Page 12 13 13. Per contra, according to the learned counsel for the  appellant, the "Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary  Awards,   1982"   contained   in   Appendix­II   of   the   Pension 

the respondents. 14. There   being   difference   in   the   two   sets   of   the  Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards referred  to by the counsel for the respondents and the appellant, on  the direction of the Court photostat copy of the 'Pension  Regulations for the Army, 1961(Part­I)' along with Appendix  (ii),   (referred   to   in   Regulations   1948,   1973   and   1985),  'Guide   to   Medical   Officers   (Military   Pensions)   2002'  published by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India,  JUDGMENT New Delhi has been produced. We also called for the Pension  Regulations for the Army, 1961 from Library which contains  Appendix­II­   'Entitlement   Rules   for   Casualty   Pensionary  Awards,   1982'   for   our   perusal,   and   we   find   that   it   is  similar to the photostat copy of the Pension Regulations  for   the   Army,   1961(Part­I)   published   by   the   Ministry   of  Defence, Government of India, New Delhi. The respondents in  Page 13 14 their counter­affidavit has not made clear as to when the  Government   of   India,   Ministry   of   Defence   letter  th No.1(1)/81/D(Pen­C)   dated   20   June,   1996   was   notified   in 

Pensionary   Awards,   1982.   In   their   counter­affidavit   they  have   not   mentioned   that   the   rules   extracted   in   their  counter­affidavit is true copy of its original.  15. For   the   said   reason,   we   will   rely   on   the   "Pension  Regulations   for   the   Army,   1961"   and   Appendix­II­  'Entitlement   Rules   for   Casualty   Pensionary   Awards,   1982'  published by the Government of India, we will also discuss  the   Rules   14(a),   14(b),   14   (c)   and   14(d)   as   quoted   and  relied on by the respondents.   JUDGMENT 16. Regulation   173   of   Pension   Regulations   for   the   Army,  1961   relates   to   the   primary   conditions   for   the   grant   of  disability pension and reads as follows: “Regulation   173 .   Unless   otherwise  specifically   provided   a   disability   pension  consisting of service element and disability  element may be granted to an individual who  is invalidated out of service on account of  a   disability   which   is   attributable   to   or  Page 14 15 aggravated by military service in non­battle  casualty and is assessed 20 per cent or over The   question   whether   a   disability   is  attributable   to   or   aggravated   by   military  service shall be determined under the rule  in Appendix II.” 17. From a bare perusal of the Regulation aforesaid, it is  clear   that   disability   pension   in   normal   course   is   to   be  granted   to   an   individual   (i)   who   is   invalidated   out   of  service on account of a disability which is attributable to  or aggravated by military service and (ii) who is assessed  at   20%   or   over   disability   unless   otherwise   it   is  specifically provided. 18. A   disability   is   'attributable   to   or   aggravated   by  military service' to be determined under the “Entitlement  Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982', as shown in  JUDGMENT Appendix­II. Rule 5 relates to approach to the Entitlement  Rules   for   Casualty   Pensionary   Awards,   1982   based   on  presumption as shown hereunder: “ Rule5   .   The   approach   to   the  question of entitlement to casualty  pensionary awards and evaluation of  disabilities   shall   be   based   on   the  following presumptions: PRIOR TO AND DURING SERVICE Page 15 16 (a)member is presumed to have been in sound  physical   and   mental   condition   upon   entering  except as to physical disabilities noted or  recorded at the time of entrance.

From Rule 5 we find that a general presumption is to be  drawn   that   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.   If  a  person is discharged from service  on  medical ground for deterioration in his health it is to be  presumed   that   the   deterioration   in   the   health   has   taken  place due to service.  19. “Onus of proof" is not on claimant as apparent from  JUDGMENT Rule 9, which reads as follows: “ Rule 9.  ONUS OF PROOF­ The claimant  shall   not   be   called   upon   to   prove  the   conditions   of   entitlements.  He/she   will   receive   the   benefit   of  any   reasonable   doubt.   This   benefit  will be given more liberally to the  claimants   in   field/afloat   service  cases.”   Page 16 17 From   a   bare   perusal   of   Rule   9   it   is   clear   that   a  member,   who   is   declared   disabled   from   service,   is   not  required   to   prove   his   entitlement   of   pension   and   such 

claimants.  20. With   respect   to   disability   due   to   diseases   Rule   14  shall be applicable which as per the Government of India  publication reads as follows: “Rule   14.   DISEASE­   In   respect   of  diseases,   the   following   rule   will   be  observed:­ (a)Cases in which it is established  that conditions of Military 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. JUDGMENT (b)A   disease   which   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 the individual's  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. Page 17 18

As per clause (b) of Rule 14 a disease which 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   the   individual's   acceptance   for   military  service.  As per clause(c) of Rule 14 if a disease is accepted as  having arisen in service, it must also be established that  the   conditions   of   military   service   determined   or  JUDGMENT contributed   to   the   onset   of   the   disease   and   that   the  conditions   were   due   to   the   circumstances   of   duty   in  military service. 21. If   we   notice   Rule   14(a),   14(b),   14(c)   and   14(d)   as  quoted   by   the   respondents   in   their   counter­affidavit,   it  makes   no   much   difference   for   determination   of   issue.  According to the respondents, Rule 14(a), 14(b), 14(c) and  Page 18 19 14(d)   as   amended   vide   Government   of   India,   Ministry   of  th Defence   letter   No.1(1)/81/D(Pen­C)   dated   20   June,   1996  reads as follows:

(i)That the disease has arisen during the period  of military service, and (ii)That   the   disease   has   been   caused   by   the  conditions of employment in military service. Rule 14(b)­   If medical authority holds, for  reasons   to   be   stated,   that   the   disease  although   present   at   the   time   of   enrolment  could   not   have   been   detected   on   medical  examination prior to acceptance for service,  the   disease,   will   not   be   deemed   to   have  arisen during service. In case where it is  established   that   the   military   service   did  not   contribute   to   the   onset   or   adversely  affect   the   course   disease,   entitlement   for  casualty   pensionary   award   will   not   be  conceded   even   if   the   disease   has   arisen  during service. JUDGMENT Rule 14(c)­  Cases in which it is established  that conditions of military service did not  determine or contribute to the onset of the  disease   but,   influenced   the   subsequent  course   of   the   disease,   will   fall   for  acceptance on the basis of aggravation.  Page 19 20

22. As per Rule 14(a) we notice that for acceptance of a  disease as attributable to military service, conditions are  to be satisfied that the disease has been arisen during the  military   service,   and   caused   by   the   conditions   of  employment   in   military   service   which   is   similar   to   Rule  14(c) of the printed version as relied on by the appellant.  Rule   14(b)   cited   by   the   respondents   is   also   similar   to  published Rule 14. Rule   14(c)   cited   by   the   respondents   relates   to   the  JUDGMENT cases   in   which   it   is   established   that   conditions   of  military   service   did   not   determine   or   contribute   to   the  onset of the disease but, influenced the subsequent course  of the disease, will fall for acceptance on the basis of  aggravation.  Rule 14(d) cited by the respondents relates to diseases  which   are   detected   after   the   individual   has   joined   the  Page 20 21 service, which entails disability pension but it is to be  established that the course of such disease was adversely  affected due to factors related to conditions of military  service.  23. If   the   amended   version   of   Rule   14   as   cited   by   the  respondents is accepted to be the Rule applicable in the  present case, even then the onus of proof shall lie on the  employer­respondents   in   terms   of   Rule   9   and   not   the  claimant and in case of any reasonable doubt the benefit  will go more liberally to the claimants.  24. The Rules to be followed by Medical Board in disposal  of   special   cases   have   been   shown   under   Chapter   VIII   of  the“General   Rules   of   Guide   to   Medical   Officers   (Military  Pensions) 2002. Rule 423 deals with "Attributability     to  JUDGMENT service” relevant of which reads as follows: “423(a) For   the   purpose   of   determining  whether the cause of a disability or death  resulting   from   disease   is   or   is   not  attributable   to   service,   it   is   immaterial  whether   the   cause   giving   rise   to   the  disability   or   death   occurred   in   an   area  declared to be a FieldService/Active Service  area or under normal peace conditions. It is  however, essential to establish whether the  disability or death bore a casual connection  with   the   service   conditions.   All   evidence  Page 21 22

(c).   The   cause   of   a   disability   or   death  resulting from a disease will be regarded as  attributable   to   Service   when   it   is  established   that   the   disease   arose   during  Service and the conditions and circumstances  of duty in the Armed Forces determined and  contributed   to   the   onset   of   the   disease.  Cases,   in   which   it   is   established   that  Service   conditions   did   not   determine   or  contribute to the onset of the disease but  influenced   the   subsequent   course   of   the  disease, will be regarded as aggravated by  the service. A disease which 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   the   individual's   acceptance   for  Service   in   the   Armed   Forces.   However,   if  medical   opinion   holds,   for   reasons   tobe  stated that the disease could not have been  JUDGMENT Page 22 23 detected   on   medical   examination   prior   to  acceptance for service, the disease will not  be deemed to have arisen during service.

25. Therefore, as per Rule 423 following procedures to be  followed by the Medical Board:   (i) Evidence both direct and circumstantial to be taken  JUDGMENT into   account   by   the   Board   and   benefit   of   reasonable  doubt, if any would go to the individual;  (ii)   a   disease   which   has   led   to   an   individual's  discharge or death will ordinarily be  treated to have  been arisen in service, if no note of it was made at  the   time   of   individual's   acceptance   for   service   in  Armed Forces.  Page 23 24 (iii)   If   the   medical   opinion   holds   that   the   disease  could   not   have   been   detected   on   medical   examination  prior to acceptance for service and the disease will 

the same.  26. ‘Chapter II’of the Guide to Medical Officers (Military  Pensions)   2002   relates   to   “Entitlement   :   General  Principles".  In the opening paragraph 1, it is made clear  that the Medical Board should examine cases in the light of  the   etiology   of   the   particular   disease   and   after  considering all the relevant particulars of a case, record  their conclusions with reasons in support, in clear terms  and in a language which the Pension Sanctioning Authority  JUDGMENT would   be   able   to   appreciate   fully   in   determining   the  question   of   entitlement   according   to   the   rules.   Medical  officers   should   comment   on   the   evidence   both   for   and  against   the   concession   of   entitlement;   the   aforesaid  paragraph reads as follows: “1. Although the certificate of a properly  constituted medical authority vis­a­vis the  invaliding   disability,   or   death,   forms   the  basis   of   compensation   payable   by   the  Page 24 25

Paragraph 6 suggests the procedure to be followed by  JUDGMENT service authorities if there is no note, or adequate note,  in the service records on which the claim is based.  Paragraph 7 talks of evidentiary value attached to the  record   of   a   member's   condition   at   the   commencement   of  service,   .e.g.   pre­enrolment   history   of   an   injury,   or  disease   like   epilepsy,   mental   disorder   etc.   Further,  Page 25 26 guidelines have been laid down at paragraphs 8 and 9, as  quoted below:

JUDGMENT 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 investigations, e.g. CONGENITAL  DEFECT   OF   SPINE,   SPINA   BIFIDA,  SACRALIZATION, Page 26 27 (b)Certain   familial   and   hereditary  diseases, e.g., HAEMOPHILIA, CONGENTIAL  SYPHILIS, HAEMOGIOBINOPATHY.

(e) Relapsing forms of mental disorders  which have intervals of normality. (f)   Diseases   which   have   periodic  attacks   e.g.,   BRONCHIAL   ASTHMA,  EPILEPSY, CSOM ETC. 8. The   question   whether   the   invalidation  or   death   of   a   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. In addition to any documentary evidence  relative   to   the   member's   condition   to  entering the service and during service, the  member must carefully and closely questioned  on the circumstances which led to the advent  of   his   disease,   the   duration,   the   family  history,   his   pre­service   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  attributability,   aggravation   or   otherwise  are   supported   by   cogent   reasons;   the  approving authority should also be satisfied  that   this   question   has   been   death   with   in  such a way as to leave no reasonable doubt. JUDGMENT Page 27 28

JUDGMENT 27. Learned   counsel   for   the   respondent­Union   of   India  relied on decisions of this Court in   Om Prakash Singh vs.  Union of India and others,(2010) 12 SCC 667;(2009) 9 SCC  140; (2010) 11 SCC 220, etc.   and submitted that this Court  has already considered the effect of Rule 5, 14a and 14(a)  and   14(b)   and   held   that   the   same   cannot   be   read   in  isolation. After perusal of the aforesaid decision we find  Page 28 29 that   Rule   14(a),   14(b)   and   14(c)   as   noticed   and   quoted  therein   are   similar   to   Rule   14   as   published   by   the  Government   of   India   and   not   Rule   14   as   quoted   by   the 

case no note of disease or disability was made at the time  of   individual's   acceptance   for   military   service,   the  Medical Board is required to give reasons in writing for  coming to the finding that the disease could not have been  detected on a medical examination prior to the acceptance  for service was neither raised nor answered by this Court  in those cases. Those were the cases which were decided on  the facts of the individual case based on the opinion of  the Medical Board. JUDGMENT 28. A   conjoint   reading   of   various   provisions,   reproduced  above, makes it clear that: (i) Disability pension to be granted to an individual  who   is   invalidated   from   service   on   account   of   a  disability which is attributable to or aggravated by  military service in non­battle casualty and is assessed  Page 29 30 at 20% or over. The question whether a disability is  attributable or aggravated by military service to be  determined   under   “Entitlement   Rules   for   Casualty 

173). (ii) A member is to be presumed in sound physical and  mental condition upon entering service if there is no  note or record at the time of entrance. In the event of  his   subsequently   being   discharged   from   service   on  medical grounds any deterioration in his health is to  be presumed due to service. [Rule 5 r/w Rule 14(b)]. (iii) Onus   of   proof   is   not   on   the   claimant  (employee), the corollary is that onus of proof that  the condition for non­entitlement is with the employer.  JUDGMENT A   claimant   has   a   right   to   derive   benefit   of   any  reasonable doubt and is entitled for pensionary benefit  more liberally. (Rule 9). (iv) If a disease is accepted to have been 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  Page 30 31 conditions   were   due   to   the   circumstances   of   duty   in  military service. [Rule 14(c)]. (v)  If no note of any disability or disease was made 

service,   a   disease   which   has   led   to   an   individual's  discharge or death will be deemed to have arisen in  service. [14(b)]. (vi)   If medical opinion holds that the disease could  not have been detected on medical examination prior to  the acceptance for service and that disease will not be  deemed to have arisen during service, the Medical Board  is required to state the reasons. [14(b)]; and (vii) It   is   mandatory   for   the   Medical   Board   to  JUDGMENT follow the guidelines laid down in Chapter­II of the  "Guide   to   Medical   (Military   Pension),   2002   –  "Entitledment   :   General   Principles",   including  paragraph 7,8 and 9 as referred to above. 29. We,   accordingly,   answer   both   the   questions   in  affirmative   in   favour   of   the   appellant   and   against   the  respondents. Page 31 32 30. In the present case it is undisputed that no note of  any disease has been recorded at the time of appellant's  acceptance   for   military   service.   The   respondents   have 

hereditary he is suffering from such disease. In absence of  any note in the service record at the time of acceptance of  joining of appellant it was incumbent on the part of the  Medical Board to call for records and look into the same  before coming to an opinion that the disease could not have  been   detected   on   medical   examination   prior   to   the  acceptance   for   military   service,   but   nothing   is   on   the  record to suggest that any such record was called for by  the Medical Board or  looked into  it and no  reasons have  JUDGMENT been recorded in writing to come to the conclusion that the  disability is not due to military service.   In fact, non­ application   of   mind   of   Medical   Board   is   apparent   from  Clause  (d) of paragraph 2 of  the opinion  of the Medical  Board, which is as follows: ____________________________________________________ Page 32 33 In the case of a disability under C  “   (d)   the board should state          what exactly in their opinion is the      cause thereof.  YES

31. Paragraph 1 of 'Chapter II' – “Entitlement : General  Principles” specifically stipulates that certificate of a  constituted   medical   authority   vis­à­vis   invalidating  disability,   or   death,   forms   the   basis   of   compensation  payable by the Government, the decision to admit or refuse  entitlement is not solely a matter which can be determined  finally by the medical authorities alone. It may require  also the consideration of other circumstances e.g. service  conditions,   pre­and   post­service   history,   verification   of  JUDGMENT wound   or   injury,   corroboration   of   statements,   collecting  and weighing the value of evidence, and in some instances,  matters of military law and dispute. For the said reasons  the Medical Board was required to examine the cases in the  light   of   etiology   of   the   particular   disease   and   after  considering all the relevant particulars of a case, it was  required to record its conclusion with reasons in support,  Page 33 34 in clear terms and language which the Pension Sanctioning  Authority would be able to appreciate. 32. In   spite   of   the   aforesaid   provisions,   the   Pension 

Board had not given any reason in support of its opinion,  particularly   when   there   is   no   note   of   such   disease   or  disability available in the service record of the appellant  at   the   time   of   acceptance   for   military   service.   Without  going through the aforesaid facts the Pension Sanctioning  Authority   mechanically   passed   the   impugned   order   of  rejection based on the report of the Medical Board. As per  Rules 5 and 9 of 'Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary  Awards,   1982',   the   appellant   is   entitled   for   presumption  and benefit of presumption in his favour.   In absence of  JUDGMENT any   evidence   on   record   to   show   that   the   appellant   was  suffering from "Genrealised seizure (Epilepsy)” at the time  of acceptance of his service, it will be presumed that the  appellant was in sound physical and mental condition at the  time   of   entering   the   service   and   deterioration   in   his  health has taken place due to service.  Page 34 35 33. As per Rule 423(a) of General Rules for the purpose of  determining a question whether the cause of a disability or  death resulting from disease is or is not attributable to 

a field service/active service area or under normal peace  conditions.     "Classification       of   diseases”   have   been  prescribed at Chapter IV of Annexure I; under paragraph 4  post traumatic epilepsy and other mental changes resulting  from head injuries have been shown as one of the diseases  affected   by   training,   marching,   prolonged   standing   etc.  Therefore, the presumption would be that the disability of  the   appellant   bore   a   casual   connection   with   the   service  conditions. JUDGMENT 34. In view of the finding as recorded above, we have no  option but to set aside the impugned order passed by the  st Division Bench dated 31   July, 2009 in LPA No.26 of 2004  and uphold the decision of the learned Single Judge dated  th 20   May,   2004.   The   impugned   order   is   set   aside   and  accordingly   the   appeal   is   allowed.   The   respondents   are  directed to pay the appellant the benefit in terms of the  Page 35 36 order passed by the learned Single Judge in accordance with  law within three months if not yet paid, else they shall be  liable to pay interest as per order passed by the learned  Single Judge. No costs.       ..........………………………………………………..J.    (A.K. PATNAIK)  …........…………………………………………….J.              (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA) NEW DELHI, JULY 2, 2013. JUDGMENT Page 36