REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  5655          OF 2010 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 21998 of 2009)

Om Prakash Singh    … Appellant

Versus

Union of India & Others    … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. Leave granted.   

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order  

dated 27.3.2009 passed by the High Court  of  Delhi  at  New  

Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7834 of 2009.

3. The short question involved in this appeal pertains to the  

controversy  whether  the  appellant  is  entitled  to  disability  

pension?   

4. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the matter  

are recapitulated as under:

The  appellant  was  enrolled  in  the  Territorial  Army  on  

28.9.1975  as  a  Sepoy.   At  the  time  of  joining  service  the  

appellant  was put through the medical  test  and was found  

medically fit.  According to the appellant, while serving in the  

Army,  he  had contacted  the  disease  known as “Unspecified  

Psychosis” on 26.6.1985, which is a psychiatric disorder.  The  

appellant  was treated in the  Army Hospital  at  Delhi  Cantt.  

On the recommendations of the Medical Board which assessed  

the appellant’s disability as 40%, he was invalided out from  

the service.   According to the Medical Board the disease of the  

appellant  was neither  attributable  to nor aggravated by the  

military service.

5. The claim of the appellant for grant of disability pension  

was rejected by the competent authority.  The appellant filed a  

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 838 of 2008 in the High Court of Delhi.  

There was a similar matter pending with the High Court and  

2

the High Court by a common order dated 30.4.2008 directed  

the  respondents  to  hold  the  Appeal  Medical  Boasrd  with  

further direction that the parameters laid down by the High  

Court  in  the  cases  of  Ex-Sepoy  Gopal  Singh  Dadwal v.  

Union  of  India  & Others (2007)  1  SLR  616  and  Ex-Cfn  

Sugna  Ram  Ranoliya v. Union  of  India  &  Others 132  

(2006) DLT 544 (DB) be taken into consideration.  

6. The Appeal Medical Board opined that the disease of the  

appellant  was neither  attributable  to nor aggravated by the  

military  service  because  it  was  contracted  in  peace  area.  

Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed Writ Petition (Civil) No.  

7834 of 2009 which was dismissed by the High Court. Hence,  

the present appeal by special leave.

7. We deem it appropriate to set out the relevant part of the  

opinion of the Medical Board.  The same is as under:

“PART V OPINION OF THE MEDICAL BOARD

Individual’s  Relationship  of  the  Disability  with  Service  conditions or otherwise

Disability Attributable  to service

(Y/N)

Aggravated  by service

(Y/N)

Not  connected  

with  service (Y/N)

Reason/ cause/  specific  

condition and  period in service

UNSPECIFIED  PSYCHOSIS

No No Yes *

3

* As  per  medical  consensus,  unspecified  psychosis,  like  schizophrenia  is  caused  by  interaction  of  multiple  genetic  vulnerabilities  coupled  with  environmental,  biological,  psychological  and  psychosocial  stressors  during  early  childhood  development  or  structural and neuro-chemical damage to the  brain  in  infancy  manifesting  in  adult  life  as  psychosis,  hence  it  cannot  be  considered  as  attributable  to  military  service.   However,  despite  being  a  constitutional  psychiatric  disease  benefit  of  doubt  is  given  to  an  individual on possibility of stress and strain of  service in war like situations, threat to life by  enemy  action  in  CIOPs  or  extreme  environmental  conditions  of  prolonged  field/high altitude service, hastening the onset  or aggravating it (as specified in Annexure I to  Encirclement  Rules  –  Classification  of  Diseases).  However, no such stress/strain of  military  service  as  defined  in  Para  54  of  Chapter  VI  of  Guide  to  medical  officers  (military Pensions) 2002, which is considered  stressful enough to hasten onset or aggravate  the  invaliding  disease (ID),  is  evident  in  this  instant case as individual did not serve in any  field/CIOPs/High  altitude  areas  or  extreme  environmental  conditions  and served only  in  peace stations (Cannanore and Delhi).  In view  of the above, as per the principles of military  medicine, invaliding disease (ID) is considered  neither  attributable  to  nor  aggravated  by  military service.

Sd/- Col. A.T. Kalghargi Director (Pension)  Dir AFMS (Pension) Office of DGAFMS Min. of Defence, New Delhi

Sd/- Brig.V.K. Kataria Dy. DGAFMS(Pens) Office of DGAFMS Min. of Defence New Delhi.

4

Sd/- NEATU NARANG Lt. Col. AMC Classified Spl (Psychiatry) Base Hospital Delhi Cantt.”

8. The  appellant  asserted  that  the  entitlement  to  the  

disability  pension flows from Regulation 173 of  the Pension  

Regulations for the Army 1961 – Part I (hereinafter referred to  

as the Regulation).  He further asserted that the High Court  

fell  in grave error of  law in not considering this  mandatory  

provision.   The  relevant  Regulation  173  of  the  Regulation  

reads as under:

“173. Unless  otherwise  specifically  provided a disability  pension consisting  of  service  element and disability element may be granted to an  individual who is invalided out of service on account  of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated  by  military  service  in  non-battle  casualty  and  is  assessed at 20 percent or over.

The  question  whether  a  disability  is  attributable  to  or  aggravated  by  military  service  shall be determined under the rules in Appendix-II.”

9. According to the appellant, it is clear from the above-said  

Regulation  that  two  conditions  decide  the  entitlement  to  

disability  pension.   The first  condition is that he should be  

invalided  out  of  service  on  account  of  disability  which  is  

attributable to or aggravated by military service. The second  

5

condition is that the disability should be assessed at 20% or  

more.   The assessment of percentage of disability is in the  

domain  of  the  medical  board  which  examines  the  physical  

conditions  of  the  concerned  official.   In  deciding  the  

percentage  of  disability  the  medical  board is  guided by  the  

Medical Regulations.   

10. The appellant also submitted that whether a disability is  

attributable to or aggravated by the military service, has to be  

determined  under  the  Entitlement  Rules  for  Casualty  

Pensionary  Awards  1982  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  

“Entitlement Rules”).  According to the appellant, the opinion  

of the medical board in respect of attributability does not get  

supremacy  and  it  is  to  be  treated  only  of  recommendatory  

nature.   He submitted that the Entitlement Rules have to be  

applied  to  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  each  case  to  

determine the attributability of a disease.  

11. The appellant submitted that the Entitlement Rules are  

beneficial provisions and, therefore, to be interpreted liberally.  

These  rules  are  made  with  the  object  of  granting  disability  

pension and not of denying it.   He relied upon Rules 5, 9, 14  

6

& 15 of  the Entitlement Rules.   The same are extracted as  

under:

“Rule  5. The  approach  to  the  question  of  entitlement  to  casualty  pensionary  awards  and  evaluation  of  disabilities  shall  be  based  on  the  following:-

Prior to and During Service

(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.

(b) In  the  event  of  his  subsequently  being  discharged  from  service  on  medical  grounds  any  deterioration  in  his  health  which  has  taken place is due to service.

Rule 9. Onus of Proof.  The claimant shall not be  called upon to prove the conditions of entitlement.  He/she  will  receive  the  benefit  of  any  reasonable  doubt.  This benefit will be given more liberally to  the claimant in field/afloat service cases.

Rule 14. 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  course  of  the  disease will fall for acceptance on the basis of  aggravation.

(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  

7

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.

(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.

Rule 15. The onset and progress of some diseases  are  affected  by  environmental  factors  related  to  service conditions, dietary compulsions, exposure to  noise,  physical  and  mental  stress  and  strain.  Diseases  due  to  infection  arising  in  service  will  merit  entitlement  of  attributability.   Nevertheless,  attention  must  be  given  to  the  possibility  of  pre- service history of such condition which, if  proved,  could  rule  out  entitlement  of  attributability  but  would require consideration regarding aggravation.  For clinical discretion of common diseases reference  shall  be  made  to  the  Guide  to  Medical  Officers  (Military Pension)  1980, as amended from time to  time.   The  classification  of  diseases  affected  by  environmental  factors  in  service  is  given  in  Annexure III to these rules.”

12. According to the appellant, the High Court fell in grave  

error in not considering the above stated rules.  The rules are  

statutory  in  character  and,  therefore,  were  mandatorily  

required  to  be  considered  in  deciding  the  attributability  

aspect.   The appellant submitted that since none of the above  

8

stated rules or regulation were considered by the High Court,  

the  impugned  judgment  and  order  of  the  High  Court  is  

required to be set aside.     

13. The  appellant  further  submitted  that  at  the  time  of  

entering  into  the  service,  on both occasions,  he  was found  

medically fit  in all  respects.   Neither the appellant had any  

past psychiatric history prior to 26.6.1985 nor his family had  

any background of  psychiatric  history.   Thus the invaliding  

disease arose during service and did not exist before joining  

the army service.   The appellant  submitted that his case is  

covered  by  Rules  5  and  14(b)  of  the  Entitlement  Rules.  

According to him, the High Court was wrong in not giving the  

benefit of Rule 15 of the Entitlement Rules.

14. The  question  whether  a  disability  is  attributable  to  or  

aggravated by military service shall be determined under the  

Rules in Appendix II.  Relevant portion in Appendix II reads as  

follows:

“2. Disablement or death shall be accepted as due  to military service provided it is certified that— (a) the  disablement  is  due  to  wound,  injury  or  disease which—

(i) is attributable to military service; or

9

(ii) existed  before  or  arose  during  military  service  and  has  been  and  remains aggravated thereby;

(b) the death was due to or hastened by— (i) a  wound,  injury  or  disease  which  

was attributable to military service;  or

(ii) the  aggravation  by  military  service  of a wound, injury or disease which  existed  before  or  arose  during  military service.

Note.— The rule also covers cases of death after  discharge/invaliding from service. 3. There  must  be  a  causal  connection  between  disablement  or  death  and  military  service  for  attributability or aggravation to be conceded. 4.  In  deciding on the issue of  entitlement  all  the  evidence,  both  direct  and  circumstantial,  will  be  taken  into  account  and  the  benefit  of  reasonable  doubt will be given to the claimant. This benefit will  be  given  more  liberally  to  the  claimant  in  field  service case.”

15. Regulation 423 deals with “Attributability to service” and  

reads as under:

“423.  Attributability to service.—(a) For the purpose  of determining whether the cause of a disability or  death  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  field  service/active  service  area  or  under  normal peace conditions. It is, however, essential to  establish  whether  the  disability  or  death  bore  a  causal  connection  with  the  service  conditions.  All  evidence,  both  direct  and  circumstantial,  will  be  taken into account and benefit of reasonable doubt,  if any, will be given to the individual. The evidence  to be accepted as reasonable doubt, for the purpose  

10

of  these  instructions,  should  be  of  a  degree  of  cogency,  which  though  not  reaching  certainty,  nevertheless carry the high degree of probability. In  this  connection,  it  will  be  remembered that  proof  beyond  reasonable  doubt  does  not  mean  proof  beyond  a  shadow of  doubt.  If  the  evidence  is  so  strong  against  an  individual  as  to  leave  only  a  remote  possibility  in  his  favour,  which  can  be  dismissed with the sentence ‘of course it is possible  but  not  in  the  least  probable’  the  case  is  proved  beyond reasonable doubt. If on the other hand, the  evidence  be  so  evenly  balanced  as  to  render  impracticable a determinate conclusion one way or  the other, then the case would be one in which the  benefit of doubt could be given more liberally to the  individual, in cases occurring in field service/active  service areas.

(b) The  cause  of  a  disability  or  death  resulting  from  wound  or  injury,  will  be  regarded  as  attributable  to  service  if  the  wound/injury  was  sustained during the actual performance of ‘duty’ in  armed forces.  In case of  injuries which were self- inflicted  or  due  to  an  individual’s  own  serious  negligence  or  misconduct,  the  Board  will  also  comment how far the disability resulted from self- infliction, negligence or misconduct.

(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  

11

acceptance for service in the armed forces. 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.

(d) The question, whether a disability or death is  attributable to or aggravated by service or not, will  be  decided  as  regards  its  medical  aspects  by  a  Medical Board or by the medical officer who signs  the  death  certificate.  The  Medical  Board/Medical  Officer  will  specify  reasons  for  their/his  opinion.  The opinion of the Medical Board/Medical Officer,  insofar  as  it  relates  to  the  actual  cause  of  the  disability or death and the circumstances in which  it originated will be regarded as final. The question  whether the cause and the attendant circumstances  can  be  attributed  to  service  will,  however,  be  decided by the pension sanctioning authority.

(e) To  assist  the  medical  officer  who  signs  the  death certificate or the Medical Board in the case of  an invalid, the CO Unit will furnish a report on:

(i) AFMSF 81 in all cases other than those due to  injuries.

(ii) IAFY-2006 in all  cases of injuries other than  battle injuries.

(f) In cases where award of disability pension or  reassessment of disabilities is concerned, a Medical  Board is always necessary and the certificate of a  single medical officer will not be accepted except in  case of stations where it is not possible or feasible  to  assemble  a  regular  Medical  Board  for  such  purposes. The certificate of a single medical officer  in  the  latter  case  will  be  furnished  on  a  Medical  Board  form  and  countersigned  by  the  ADMS  (Army)/DMS (Navy)/DMS (Air).”

12

16.   In Union of India & Others v. Baljit Singh (1996) 11  

SCC 315 this Court observed as under:

“6.  ...  It  is  seen  that  various  criteria  have  been  prescribed in the guidelines under the Regulations  as to when the disease or injury is attributable to  the military service. It is seen that under Rule 173  disability  pension  would  be  computed  only  when  disability  has occurred due to a wound, injury or  disease which is attributable to military service or  existed before or arose during military service and  has  been  and  remains  aggravated  during  the  military  service.  If  these  conditions  are  satisfied,  necessarily  the  incumbent  is  entitled  to  the  disability  pension.  This is  made amply clear from  Clauses (a) to (d) of Para 7 which contemplates that  in  respect  of  a  disease  the  Rules  enumerated  thereunder  require  to  be  observed.  Clause  (c)  provides  that  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.  Unless  these  conditions  are  satisfied, it cannot be said that the sustenance of  injury per se is on account of  military service.  In  view of the report of the Medical Board of doctors, it  is not due to military service. The conclusion may  not have been satisfactorily reached that the injury  though  sustained  while  in  service,  it  was  not  on  account of  military  service.  In each case,  when a  disability pension is sought for and made a claim, it  must be affirmatively established,  as a fact,  as to  whether  the  injury  sustained  was  due to  military  service  or  was  aggravated  which  contributed  to  invalidation for the military service.”

13

17. A similar question came up for adjudication in the case  

of  Union of India & Others  v. Dhir Singh China, Colonel  

(Retd.) (2003) 2 SCC 382, wherein this Court in para 7 of the  

said judgment observed as under:

“7. That  leaves  for  consideration  Regulation  53.  The  said  Regulation  provides  that  on  an  officer  being compulsorily retired on account of age or on  completion of tenure, if suffering on retirement from  a disability attributable to or aggravated by military  service and recorded by service medical authority,  he may be granted, in addition to retiring pension, a  disability  element  as  if  he  had  been  retired  on  account of disability.  It is not in dispute that the  respondent  was  compulsorily  retired  on  attaining  the age of superannuation. The question, therefore,  which  arises  for  consideration  is  whether  he  was  suffering,  on  retirement,  from  a  disability  attributable to or aggravated by military service and  recorded  by  service  medical  authority.  We  have  already referred to the opinion of the Medical Board  which found that the two disabilities from which the  respondent was suffering were not attributable to or  aggravated by military service. Clearly therefore, the  opinion  of  the  Medical  Board  ruled  out  the  applicability  of  Regulation  53  to  the  case  of  the  respondent.  The  diseases  from  which  he  was  suffering  were  not  found  to  be  attributable  to  or  aggravated  by  military  service,  and  were  in  the  nature  of  constitutional  diseases.  Such  being  the  opinion  of  the  Medical  Board,  in  our  view  the  respondent  can derive  no  benefit  from Regulation  53. The opinion of the Medical Board has not been  assailed in this proceeding and, therefore, must be  accepted.”

14

18. A similar controversy came up before this Court in Union  

of India & Others  v.  Keshar Singh (2007) 12 SCC 675, in  

which this Court relied upon the Medical Board’s opinion to  

the effect that the illness suffered by the respondent was not  

attributable to military service.    

19. In the instant case, the records reveal that, in the opinion  

of the Medical Board, the condition of the appellant cannot be  

said to have triggered on account of the military service.   In  

the opinion of the Medical Board, the disease was not at all  

attributable to the military service.

20. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.  

We are clearly of the view that the Medical Board is an expert  

body and they take into consideration all relevant factors and  

essential  practice  before  arriving  at  any  opinion  and  its  

opinion is entitled to be given due weight, merit credence and  

value.    

21. In  the  instant  case,  the  Medical  Board  has  given  

unanimous  opinion  that  the  disease  of  the  appellant  was  

neither attributable to nor aggravated by the military service.  

The findings of the Medical Board has been accepted by the  

15

Division Bench of the High Court.  Thus, in our considered  

opinion,  no interference is  called  for.   The appellant  is  not  

entitled  to  the  disability  pension.   However,  in  case  some  

amount  has  ever  been  paid  to  the  appellant  towards  the  

disability pension, the same may not be recovered from him.

22. The  appeal  being  devoid  of  any  merit  is  accordingly  

dismissed.   However,  in the facts and circumstances of  the  

case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.

.…………………………J.                                                       (Dalveer Bhandari)

………………………….J.                                                  (Deepak Verma)

New Delhi; July 20, 2010

16