UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus KESHAR SINGH

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 408 · Decided: 20-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
't.-
v. 
..... 
KESHAR SINGH 
APRIL 20, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJITPASAYAT AND I,PKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
Service law: 
.. 
~ 
Pension Regulations, 1961: 
c 
Regulation 49, Appendix IL para 7 (c ) read with para 7(b), and 
Regulation 423-Army-Disability pension-Claim for-Expression 
"attributable to service "-Connotation of-Rifleman in Army-Discharged 
on report of Medical Board that soldier was suffering from Schizophrenia-
D Medical Board also opined that disability did not exist before entering, the 
service, but was not attributable to military service-Held: In view of legal 
position and position and opinion of Medical Board, soldier was not entitled 
to disability pension-Armed Forces-Army-Disability pension. 
"" 
~ 
Respondent was discharged form Army on the report of the Medical 
E Board, which indicated his non-suitability for continuance in the Army as he 
was suffering from Schizophrenia, and opined that the disability did not exist 
before entering the ser_vice and was not connected with service. His appeal 
was dismissed by the appellate authority. He filed a writ petition and the Single 
Judge as also the Division Bench in special appeal, on the strength of para 
F 
7(b) of Appendix II referred to in Regulation 48 of the Pension Regulations, 
1961, held that the respondent was entitled to disability pension. 
In the appeal filed by the Union oflndia, it was contended that the High 
Court lost sight of para 7(c) of Appendix II and Regulation 423 of the 
Regulations. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Clause (c) of Para 7 of Appendix II referred to in Regulation 
.; 
48 of the Pension Regulations, 1961 makes the position clear that if a disease 
is accepted as having arisen in service it must also be established that the 
H 
408 
-> 
~ . 
,;! 
.. 
.. 
~-
f 
U.O.l. v. KESHARSINGH[PASAYAT,J.] 
409 
conditions of military service determined or contributed on the onset of the 
disease and that the conditions are due to the circumstances of duty in military 
service. There is no material placed by the respondent in this regard. 
[Para 5) (411-CJ 
1.2. Further, Regulation 423 explains the terms "attributable to service" 
and lays down that the cause of a disability or death resulting from a disease 
will be regarded as attributable to service when it is established that the 
disease arose during service and conditions and circumstances of duty in 
the armed forces determined and contributed to the onset of the disease. It is 
essential to establish whether the disability or death bore a casual connection 
with the service conditions. The opinion of he medical board/medical officer, 
in so far as it relates to the actual cause of the disability or death and the 
circumstances in which it originated will be regarded as final. In the instance 
case, opinion of the Medical Board was clearly to the effect that the illness 
suffered by the soldier was not attributable to the military service. 
[Para 7 and 11) (412-C-D; E; 413-C; F; 415-G] 
1.3. In view of the legal position and the opinion of the Medical Board, 
both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court were not 
justified in their respective conclusions. The respondent is not entitled to 
disability pension. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, 
payment already made to the respondent by way of disability pension shall not 
be recovered from him. [Para 111 [415-GI 
Union of India and Anr. v. Baljit Singh, (1996) ll SCC 315; Union of 
India and Anr. v. Dhir Singh China, Colonel (Retd.), [2003) 2 SCC 383 and 
Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) and Ors. v. S. Balachandra Nair, 
[20051 13 sec 128, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 762 of200L 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.09.1998 of the High Court of 
Judicature, at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 812of1998. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
R. Mohan, A.S.G., V. Mohana, Rajni Singh, R.C. Kathiya and 8.V. Balaram 
Das for the Appellants. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment H 
410 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 5 S.C.R. 
A rendered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the 
special appeal filed by the appellant against the order of learned Single Judge. 
The controversy lies within a very narrow compass i.e. whether the respondent 
is eligible to disability pension. 
B 
2. Background facts giving rise to the present dispute is

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