LexSECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE & OTHERS versus DAMODARAN A.V. (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 416 A SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE & OTHERS B v. DAMODARAN A.V. (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 5678 of 2009) AUGUST 20, 2009 [DALVEER BHANDARI AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] ~ Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 - Regulations C 173 and 423 - Disability pension - Entitlement to - Army officer diagnosed to be suffering from "Schizophrenia" - Medical Board opined that disability of the officer was neither attributable nor aggravated by Military service nor connected to the service, but was constitutional in nature and accordingly D recommended him to be invalided out of service in medical category "EEE" (Psychological) - ·Writ petition by LRs of the officer praying for grant of disability pension - High Court ignored report of Medical Board and granted disability pension - Propriety of - Held: Not proper - Medical Board is E an expert body and its opinion is entitled to be given due weight, value and credence - On facts, the condition of military service did not trigger the onset of "schizophrenia" - Legal representatives of concerned officer therefore not entitled to disability pension - However if any amount towards F such disability pension is already paid, same may not be recovered from the LRs - Service Law - Military service - Pension. Respondent no.1, an Army officer with five years service, was diagnosed to be suffering from ~- G "Schizophrenia". The Medical Board at the Command Hospital opined that the disability of respondent no.1 was neither attributable nor aggravated by the Military service ~'i . nor connected to the service, but was constitutional in nature and accordingly recommended him to be invalided H 416 SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE v. 417 DAMODARAN A.V. (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. out of service in medical category "EEE" (Psychological). A The legal representatives of respondent no.1 filed writ petition before High Court praying for grant of disability pension. The petition was allowed and disability pension granted under the provisions contained in Pensions Regulations for the Army, 1961 and such other enabling B provisions. - J._ The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal was whether the High Court was justified in ignoring the report of the Medical Board and granting c disability pension. Allowing the appeal, the Court ; HELD (Per Dalveer Bhandari, J.): D -" 1.1. The Medical Board is an expert body and its opinion is entitted to be given due weight, value and credence. In the instant case, the Medical Board has clearly opined that the disability of respondent no.1 was neither attributable nor aggravated by the military service. E [Para 17] [429-F-G] 1.2. The High Court did not consider this case in "' proper prospective and in the light of the judgments of ... the Supreme Court. The legal representatives of F respondent no.1 are not entitled to the disability pension. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in case some amount has been paid to them towards disability pension, the same may not be recovered from them. [Para 18] [429-G-H; 430-A] G Union of India v. Baljit Singh (1996) 11 SCC 315; Union ·-¥'. of India & Others v. Dhir Singh China, Colonel (Retd.) (2003) - 2 SCC 382 and Union of India & Others v. Keshar Singh (2007) 12 sec 675, relied on. H -- 418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R A Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) & Others v. S. Balachandran Nair (2005) 13 SCC 128, referred to. HELD [Per Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.] [Concurring] B 1.1. The respondent was posted to 1st Engineer Regiment at Allahabad, which is neither a sensitive border area nor a difficult terrain/high altitude region. The respondent was not posted at an isolated location. He had access to the society there. A person is, under law, ~- entitled to the disability pension provided his disability is c certified by the appropriate medical authority as being attributable to or aggravated by or connected with the military service. [Para 12] [434-H; 435-A] 1.2. The record reveals that in the opinion of the D Medical Board no physical contributory factor was .\ elicited for the psychotic breakdown of the respondent. ).. Thus, the condition of military service cannot be said to have triggered the onset of schizophrenia in the I respondent. However, the possibility of the development E of schizophrenia in the respondent as a resu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.