EX. GNR. LAXMANRAM POONIA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus UNLON OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2017] 2 S.C.R. 220 · Decided: 22-02-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 2 S.C.R. 220 
A 
EX. GNR. LAXMANRAM POONIA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
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 
H 
of service on account of a disability which is attributable to or 
220 
EX. GNR. LAXMANRAM POONIA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.