- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Union Of India And Another v. Baljit Singh .
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent was enrolled in the Indian Army as an Apprentice on 30 March 1975 and secured regular appointment from 27 March 1977 in the EME 177 Battalion. On 17 April 1979 he suffered a “moderately severe injury — Abductor Strain (right) thigh, internal derangement (right) knee.” He was treated in Military Hospital, Babina, and downgraded to medical category CEE (temporary) with effect from 11 August 1979.
Subsequently, the respondent reported to the Psychiatric OPD in February 1980 and was eventually diagnosed on 10 May 1981 with “Neurosis superimposed on an immature histrionic personality.” A Medical Board recommended that he be invalidated out of service, and he was discharged by consent on 31 May 1981.
In 1995 the respondent filed Writ Petition No. 738 of 1995 before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. By judgment dated 31 October 1995 the High Court directed the appellants to grant him disability pension. Aggrieved, the Union of India and others filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court by special leave.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the respondent’s disability is “attributable to or aggravated by military service” within the meaning of Rule 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, so as to entitle him to disability pension.
- Whether the High Court erred in directing payment of disability pension despite the Medical Board’s opinion that the injury was not connected with military service.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments
- Rule 173 permits disability pension only when invalidation is on account of a disability attributable to or aggravated by military service and assessed at 20 % or more.
- The Medical Board’s report (Column 2(iii)) expressly recorded that the respondent’s injury was not connected with service; hence the statutory pre-condition for pension was absent.
Respondent’s Arguments
- Paragraph 2(ii) of the Entitlement Rules (Appendix II) states that a disability arising during service is presumed attributable to service unless proved otherwise.
- Because the injury occurred while the respondent was on duty, the presumption of attributability applies, entitling him to disability pension.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court examined Rule 173 and the accompanying Entitlement Rules. It observed that disability pension is payable only when:
- The disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service; and
- The disability meets the prescribed percentage threshold.
Paragraph 7(c) of the Entitlement Rules requires a clear nexus between service conditions and the onset or aggravation of the disease or injury. The Court noted that the Medical Board had concluded the respondent’s disability was not related to military service. Consequently, the High Court’s conclusion that the respondent satisfied Rule 173 was “not totally correct.”
Nonetheless, taking into account “the facts and circumstances of this case,” the Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s order. It did not elaborate on the specific equitable or factual considerations prompting this stance, but expressly recorded its findings before dismissing the appeal.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED.
As a result, the High Court’s direction to grant disability pension to the respondent stands affirmed. The decision reiterates the statutory test under Rule 173 but, given the Court’s refusal to disturb the relief despite its expressed reservations, it does not establish a new legal precedent beyond the immediate parties.
Order
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
4. The respondent was enrolled in the Army as Apprentice on 30-3-1975 and was appointed in the service on regular basis w.e.f 27-3-1977 in the EME 177 Battalion. While he was in service he had sustained moderately severe injury Abductor Strain (R) Thigh Internal Derangement (R) Knee on 17-4-1979 and was admitted to Military Hospital, Babina where he was downgraded to medical category CEE (temporary) w.e.f 11-8-1979, by a duly constituted Medical Board of doctors. He was discharged from the Military Hospital, Babina on 12-8-1979. On 10-5-1981, the Medical Board of doctors found him physically incapacitated and reported in February 1980 in Psychiatric OPD where he was diagnosed to have a “Neurosis superimposed on an immature histrionic personality”. He was recommended to be invalidated out of service. He was discharged from service by consent as an invalidated man on 31-5-1981. He filed WP No. 738 of 1995 in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla and in the impugned judgment dated 31-10-1995, the High Court directed the appellants to pay him disability pension. Thus this appeal by special leave.
5. Shri P.P Malhotra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that under Rule 173 of the primary conditions for grant of disability pension, as per the Pension Regulations of the Army, 1961, (for short “the Pension Regulations”), unless otherwise specifically provided, a disability pension may be granted to an individual who is invalidated from service on account of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service and is assessed at 20% or over. In this case, after examination of the respondent by the board of doctors, as per Col. 2(iii) it was reported that the injury was not connected with the service and as a result he cannot be declared to have suffered injury due to the service. Mr Naresh K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent, contends that the respondent had joined the service and while he was in service, he sustained injury and that, therefore, he is entitled to disability pension. He places reliance on para 2(ii) of the Entitlement Rules, (Appendix II at p. 53 of the paper-book). At p. 55, Col. (ii) indicates that the disablement is due to a wound, injury or disease which (i) is attributable to military service; or (ii) existed before or arose during military service and has been and remains aggravated thereby.
6. He further contends that as per the medical report the injury was sustained by him while he was in service and that, therefore, it has been presumed that it was during service and accordingly must be attributable to military service. On a consideration of the rules, we think that the contention of Shri Malhotra merits acceptance. It is seen that various criteria have been prescribed in the guidelines under the Rules 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. Accordingly, we are of the view that the High Court was not totally correct in reaching that conclusion. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not think that it is an appropriate case for interference.
7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with the above findings. No costs.
Alert