EX. GNR. LAXMANRAM POONIA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS v. UNlON OF INDJA & Ors.

Judgment

2 S.C.R. 220 A EX. GNR. LAXMANRAM POONIA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. v. UNlON OF INDJA AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2633 of2017) FEBRUARY 22, 2017 [DIPAK MISRA AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.) Armed Forces: Pension Regulatio11s for the Army, 1961 - Reg11. 17 3 - Army Rules, 1954 - 1: 13{3J(iii) - Disability pensio11 - Grant of - On facts, appellanl e11rolled in Indian Army in 2005 and two years later, diagnosed lo be suffering from acule schizophrenia like psychotic disorder - Opinion of the Medical Board Iha! disability attending the appellant assessed at 60% for life but neither alfributable to nor aggravaled by Military Service - Subsequently, appellant discharged from service - Claim for granl of disability pensio11 by appellan/ - Rejected by the tribunal holding that the disability being constitutional in nature, not connected with Military Service - On appeal, held: Appellant was not suffering from any disease/disability al the time of enteri11g into Military Service - Department was to show that the appellant was suffering from schizophrenia· at the time of entering i11to service by producing any document viz. medical prescription etc - Jn the absence thereof. it would be presumed that the appellam was in a sound mental condition at the time of emering into the Military Service and that the disability of the appellanl bore a casual connection wilh the service co11ditio11s - Tribunal did not exa111i11e the case in the lighl of the Rules and Regu/alions - Thus, 1he order of 1he 1ribu11al nol sustainable - Since appellant expired in 2015, Deparlment to pay disability pension to his wife and olher legal heirs - Enti!lement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 - General Ruies of Guide to Medical Officers (Mililary Pe11siom) 2002. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 By a bare perusal of Regulation 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, it is clear that dis.ability pension in normal course is granted to an individual: who is invalided out of service on account of a disability which is attributable to or 220 B c D E F G H EX. GNR. LAXMANRAM POONIA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. v. UNION OF INDIA 221 aggravated by Military Service, and who is assessed at 20% or over disability, nnless specifically provided otherwise. A disability "attributable to or aggravated by military service" is determined as per the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982. Rule 5 relates to approach to be adopted while considering the question of entitlement to casualty pension award. It lays down certain presnmptions to be made while evaluating the disabilities. A general presumption is to be drawn that a member is presumed to have been in sound physical and mental condition npon entering service except as to physical disabilities noted or recorded at the time of entrance. If a person is discharged from service on medical gronnd for deterioration in his health it is to be presumed that the deterioration in the health has taken place dne to service. [Paras 11, 12] [227-A-C; F-G]

1.2 In the instant c;ise, as per the opinion of the Medical Board, disability attending the appellant is acute schizophrenia like psychotic disorder and assessed percentage of the disablement is 60% for life. The Medical Board in its report also opined that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by Military Service. The Medical Board did not give any reason in support of its opinion, particularly, in reference to the fact that t.here was no note of such disease or disability available in the service record of the appellant at the time of entering Military Service. [Para 18] [235-B, F]

1.3 The opinion of the Medical Board, which is an expert body has to be given due weight and credence. But the opinion of the Medical Board car.not be read in isolation; it has to be read in consonance with the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 and General Rules of Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pensions) 1982. As per Chapter II of the Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pensions), 2002, which relates to "Entitlement: General Principles", it is made clear that the Medical Board should examine cases in_ the light of the etiology of the particular disease and only after considering all the relevant particulars of a case, the board should record its conclusions with reasons so as to enable the Pension Sanctioning Authority to examine the question of entitlement o{ pension as per Rules. [Para 20] [236-E-G] A B c D E F G H 222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 2 S.C.R. A B c D E F G H

1.4 The appellant was not suffering from any disease/ disability at the time of entering into Military Service. It was on the respondent to show that the appellant was suffering from schizophrenia at the time of entering into service by producing any document viz. medical prescription etc. In the absence of any note in the service record in this regard at the time of joining the Military Service, the Medical Board should have called for the service records and looked into the same; but nothing is on record to suggest that any such record was called for by the Medical Board to arrive at the conclusion that the disability was not due to Military Service. The Medical Board simply stated that the disability is neither attributable to nor aggravated .by Military Service. in the absence of any evidence on record to show that the appellant was suffering from any such disease like schizophrenia at the time of entering into the Military Service, it would be presumed that the appellant was in a sound mental condition at the time of entering into the Military Service and the deterioration of health has taken place due to Military Service. [Para 22] (239-B-D, FJ

1.5 The tribunal did not examine the case at hand in the light of the Army Pension Regulations, 1961, the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 and General Rules of Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pensions) 2002. Applying the principles of Dliaramvir Singfz's case and Rajbir Singfz's case, it has to be presumed that the disability of the appellant bore a casual connection with the service conditions. After invalidation from the service, the appellant passed away on 01.06.2015. The legal heirs were ordered to be substituted. Hence, wife of the appellant and other legal heirs would be entitled to disability pension as per the Rules. The impugned order is .set aside. The respondents are directed to pay the disability pension to the wife and other-substituted legal heirs of appellant as per the Rules and within the stipulated period. [Paras 23, 24] (239-G-H; 240- A-C J