U.O.I & Ors vs Manjeet Singh

2. The instant appeals witness a challenge to the judgment and order dated 22nd May, 2012 rendered in LPA(SW) No. 157/2009 and CMA No. 211/2009 affirming the determination made in SWP No. 1439/2004 thereby sustaining the claim of the respondent herein to disability pension on being boarded out of the Army service on the ground of disabilities identified as “Generalised Tonic Clonic Seizure” and “Neurotic Depression”.

3. The Union of India being aggrieved by the concurrent verdicts requiring it to grant disability pension to the respondent herein from the date of his discharge from service, seeks redress in the instant appeals.

5. The foundational facts as offered by the rival pleadings would provide the back-drop of the lingering debate. The respondent had joined the Army service under the Union of India on 06.4.1999 being awarded medical category of “AYE” and according to him after undergoing rigorous medical examinations as prescribed. He, thereafter, underwent initial military training at JAK Rifles Centre, Jabalpur whereafter he was posted at No. 5 JAK Rifles at Amritsar on 5.3.2000. One day he fell unconscious in the course of cross country practice in the unit premises and had to be shifted to Military Hospital, Amritsar where he was treated for his ailment. The Medical Board that was set up for his examination lowered his category from “AYE” to “CEE” temporary w.e.f. April, 2000. The respondent has pleaded that subsequent to his discharge from the hospital he was detained for duties at Kargil. He availed leave as was granted thereafter, to join later at his transit Camp at Chandigarh. As admitted by him, while on duty, he again fell to the same illness and had to be hospitalized. The Review Medical Board, after examining him, placed him in category “BEE” permanent for the first disability and category “CEE” temporary for the second disability as mentioned therein. On his discharge from the hospital, the respondent was sent to JAK Rifles, Jabalpur. Though he applied for sheltered appointment, the same was not entertained. It was soon thereafter that he was invalided from service on being adjudged unsuitable, by the invaliding Medical Board which assessed his disability percentage as 20% qua the first disability; and 20% for the second disability; summing upto 40% for both the diseases. The Board thus recommended that he be invalided out of Army service which, in fact, was given effect to on 01.1.2002. He unsuccessfully appealed against this decision before the higher authorities. His claim for disability pension was also rejected on the ground that the disabilities detected in him were neither attributable to the Army service nor could get aggravated therefrom. Contending that the decision to board him out of service and the denial of disability pension otherwise payable to him under the relevant rules, was illegal and arbitrary, the respondent invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu for its remedial intervention.

6. The appellants in their reply apart from the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the assailment, in essence pleaded that having regard to the respondent’s short service profile which demonstrated that for a major part thereof he had remained hospitalized during the training and thereafter, the diseases diagnosed could neither to be attributable to the Army service nor comprehended to be aggravated thereby. While admitting that the respondent had joined the Army service on 06.04.1999 and that on the completion of the basic military training he was posted at 5, JAK Riffles on 04.03.2000, the Union of India set out in details, the particulars of the periods during which the respondent had remained hospitalized for treatment. According to it, the official record did reveal that he remained under medical treatment being hospitalized for the periods as hereunder:

8. Prior thereto, the Release Medical Board held on 30.8.2001 at Military Hospital, Jabalpur assessed the disability Generalised Tonic Clonic Seizure-345 at 20% for 2 years, disability Neurotic Depression (ICD)300 at 11-14% for 2 years and the composite assessment of disability at 20%. The Union of India in its reply did categorically state that the Medical Board was of the opinion that the disabilities of the respondent were neither attributable to nor aggravated by the Army service and were instead constitutional in nature. According to it, though monetary benefits as allowable under the relevant rules were released to the respondent, his claim for disability pension was rejected being impermissible.

9. That the departmental appeals filed by the respondent had been rightly rejected as his constitutional disorder was neither attributable to nor aggravated by Army service, disentitling him thereto as per para 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (part-1) (for short hereinafter also referred to as “Regulations”) was emphatically underlined. It was clarified as well that at the time of entry in service, it was not possible to conduct complete medical examination in order to detect dormant diseases and that the tests undertaken were factually clinical in nature to ascertain physical fitness. Thus according to the Union, any disease of genetic or hereditary origin was likely to go undetected at the time of recruitment.

10. The learned Single Judge on an appraisal of the contemporaneous facts and the documents available on record alongwith Regulation 173 of the Regulations and paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 7(b) of Appendix 11 thereto returned a finding that the invaliding Medical Board having failed to record reasons that the disease could not be detected on medical examination at the time of entry in service and that the same could not have aggravated during the course of his employment, its bare conclusion that those were constitutional in nature, was not in compliance of the Regulations. The learned Single Judge held that as the disability of the respondent was assessed at 20%, he was entitled to disability pension and as a consequence, quashed the orders to the contrary and directed the Union of India and its authorities to grant disability pension to him from the date he was discharged from service. Time limit of four months was also outlined for the completion of the exercise, failing which it was ordered that the respondent would be entitled to interest @ 7.5% p.a.

14. Per Contra, Mr. Chib has assiduously asserted that as the concurrent determinations made successively by the High Court are based on a threadbare scrutiny of the relevant facts and the provisions of the law involved, no interference therewith is warranted. Emphatically contending that the diseases diagnosed on the eve of the respondent’s discharge from Army service had been acquired by him in the course of his tenure, short though, and was thus clearly attributable thereto, the denial of disability pension to him was clearly illegal, high handed, arbitrary and discriminatory. According to Mr. Chib on a combined consideration of the relevant provisions of the Regulations and the Appendix II, containing “Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensioners Awards 1982” (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) and the “Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pension), 2002”, (hereinafter referred to as the “General Principles”), it being irrefutable that the respondent was entitled to disability pension thereunder, the High Court was perfectly justified in affirming the same. Pleading in particular that the Medical Board had failed to record any reason whatsoever in support of its conclusion that either the disease detected or the disability consequent thereupon was neither attributable to Army service nor aggravated thereby, he urged that the respondent could not have been denied disability pension on the vague remark that the said diseases were constitutional in nature. According to Mr. Chib, the Medical Board having failed, without any justification to record the reasons in support of its conclusion that the diseases were constitutional in nature, the very basis of denial of disability pension to the respondent had been rendered non est. According to learned counsel, the relevant rules and regulations are to be essentially construed and interpreted liberally and in the realistic perspectives and not pedantically to facilitate effectuation of the purpose thereof. Mr. Chib has drawn sustenance for his pleas from the decision of this Court in Civil Appeal No: 2904 of 2011 Union of India & Anr. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. disposed of on 13.2.2015.

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.

17. The medical opinion in the instant case, as the precursor of the invalidment of the respondent therefore needs to be assayed in this presiding statutory backdrop.

“PART I PERSONAL STATEMENT ………

The board should state fully the reasons in regard to each disability on which its opinion is based.

(c) In respect of each disability shown as aggravated under B the Board should state fully:-

182 = NA

(ii) Whether the effects of such aggravation still persist.

182 = NA

(iii) If the answer to (ii) is in the affirmative, whether effect of aggravation will persist for a material period.

182 = NA

182 = Both disabilities are constitutional in nature hence unconnected with Army service.”

20. Significantly, as would be evident from the above quoted extracts, the respondent had on being queried during his examination, denied to have been suffering from any of the disabilities at the time of joining the Army service.

were attributable to service during peace or under field service conditions;

were aggravated thereby and remained to be so;

were not connected with service;

23. The authorities cited at the Bar though underline the primacy of the opinion of the Medical Board on the issue, however, do not relieve it of its statutory obligation to record reasons as required. Necessarily, the decisions turn on their own facts. With the provisions involved being common in view of the uniformity in the exposition thereof, a dilation of the adjudications is considered inessential.

26. In the wake of the above, we hereby sustain the impugned judgment and order. The appeals are dismissed. No costs.