SUKHVINDER SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 8 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 25-06-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAMAJIT SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 8 S.C.R. 1 
SUKHVINDER SINGH 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.5605 of 2010) 
JUNE 25, 2014 
[VIKRAMAJIT SBN AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
Service Law - Pension - Disability pension - Entitlement 
A 
B 
- A combatant soldier, recruited in Indian Army - After 1 year 
presented before Medical Board, who found that the C 
incumbent was invalided out of service with disability of 6 to 
10% on account of hearing impairment - Further held him n.A 
entitled to disability pension on the ground that the disability 
was neither attributable nor aggravated by Military Services 
and since the disability was not assessed at 20% or above - o 
Held: Any disability not recorded at the time of recruitment 
must be presumed to have been caused subsequently and 
unless proved to the contrary, to be a consequence of military 
service - The benefit of doubt is rightly extended in favour of 
the member of the Armed Forces - Any other conclusion would E 
tantamount to granting a premium to the Recruitment Medical 
Board for their own negligence - The morale of the Armed 
Forces requires absolute and undiluted protection and if an 
injury leads to loss of service without any recompense, this 
morale would be severely undermined - There is no provision 
F 
authorising the tlischarge or invaliding out of seryice where 
the disability is below twenty per cent - Wherever a member 
of the Armed Forces is invalided out of service, it perforce has 
to be assumed that his disability was found to be above twenty 
per.cent -A disability leading to invaliding out of service would 
attract the grant of fifty per cent disability pension - Thus, the G 
appellant would be entitled to the Disability Pension - Pension 
Regulation for the Army, 1961, Part I - Regulations for the 
JYfedical Services of the Armed Forces, 1983 - Chapter VII -
1 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 8 S.C.R. 
A Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 -
Rule 5. 
' 
8 
CIVIL APPEAL JU131SDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5605 of 
2010 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.03.2006 in W.P. 
(C) No. 3923 of 2005 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. 
, 
R.C. Kaushik for the Appellant. 
0 
C 
K. Radhakrishna, Rashmi Malhotra, Rohitash Nagar, B.V. 
Bairam Das (for D.S. Mahra) for the Respondents. 
The Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
D 
1. This Appeal assails the Order passed by the Division 
Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated March 30, 
2006 whereby WP(C) No.3923 of 2005 came to be dismissed. 
The prayer in the Writ Petition, inter alia, was for the issuance 
of a writ directing the respondents to release (a) disability 
E pension in favour of the Petitioner if disability is twenty per cent 
and above, (b) the service element of pension in favour of the 
Petitioner and (c) to re-enrol the Petitioner if his disability is 
found less than twenty per cent. 
F 
2. Succinctly stated, the facts germane for deciding the 
present Appeal are that consequent to the Primary Medical 
Examination for Recruitment having been cond1;1cted vis-a-vis 
the Appellant/Petitioner on 22nd December, 2000, he was 
enrolled in the Indian Army as a Combatant Soldier on 15th 
G March, 2001. It bears noting that Rule 5 of the Entitlement Rules 
for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982, provides that (a) "a 
member is presumed to have been in sound physical and 
mental condition upon entering service except as to physical 
disabilities noted or recorded at the time of entrance (b) in the 
H 
SUKHVINDER SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
3 
event of his subsequently being discharged from service on 
A 
medical grounds any deterioration in his health which has taken 
place is due to service." Even though this provision postulates 
a 'casualty' we find no logical reason not to extrapolate it to even 
simple injuries or disabilities. Therefore, it would be fair to 
assume that on the date· of his recruitment the Appellant was 
B 
in a sound health; no hearing impairment had been detected 
at that stage, no adverse noting had been made in the'Medical 
Entry Form viz. AFMSF-2 for existence of any disease at the 
time of enrolment. This was after the Appellant had been 
examined physically and medically as contemplated by c 
Regulation 383 which reads thus:-
"383. Res pons i bi I ity of Recruiting and Medical 
Officers Recruiting officers are responsible for the 
measurements, apparent age, intelligence and mental 
suitability of the candidates selected by him. Medical 
D 
Off

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