LexUNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus ANGAD SINGH TITARIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015] 2 S.C.R. 524 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. ANGAD SINGH TITARIA (Civil Appeal No. 11208 of 2011) FEBRUARY 24, 2015 [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND c N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] Pension Regulations for Indian Air Force, 1961: Regulation 153 - Disability Pension - Claim for - Medical Board recommended that the disabilities D were not attributable to nor aggravated by service in Air Force - Held: In the absence of any specific note as to the respondent suffering from any disease prior to his joining the service, he is presumed to have been in sound physical and E mental condition while entering service as per Rule 5(a} of the Entitlement Rules - Simply recording a conclusion that disability was not attributable to service, without giving a reason would show Jack of proper application of mind by the Medical F Board - View taken by Medical Board not upheld - Tribunal did not commit any error in awarding disability pension to the respondent for 60% disability from the date of his discharge - Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, G 1982 - rr.5, 14(b}, 14(c}, 15. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Admittedly, at the time of his enrolment H 524 UNION OF INDIA v. ANGAD SINGH TITARIA 525 into the employment of Indian Air Force in the year A 1971, the respondent was medically and physically examined and was found fit as per prescribed medical standards. The material on record shows that the respondent was put under lower medical 8 classification A4 G4 (permanent) on account of his ailments. The Medical Board assessed the composite disability of the respondent to be 60%. Rule 4 of the Entitlement Rules makes it clear that invalidating from service is a necessary condition for grant of c disability pension. An individual who, at the time of his release under the Release Regulations, is in a lower medical category than that in which he was recruited will be treated as "invalidated from service". [Paras 9, 10] [533-C,D; 534-A-B] D 2. The onus of proof is not on the claimant (employee), the corollary is that onus of proof that the condition for non-entitlement is with the employer. According to sub-rule (b) of Rule 14 that a disease E which has led to an individual's discharge or death will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service, if no note of it was made at the time of the individual's acceptance for military service. However, if medical opinion holds that the disease could not have been F detected at the time of enrolment, the disease will not be deemed to have arisen during service. In that case, the medical opinion must contain valid reasons that the disease is not attributable to service. [Paras 12, 14] [535-C; 536-D-G] G 3. In the case on hand, the respondent was rendered ineligible for further promotion and thereby invalidated on the ground of his being in medical H 526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 2 S.C.R. A category A4 G4 (Permanent). In the absence of any specific note on record as to the respondent suffering from any disease prior to his joining the service, he is presumed to have been in sound physical and mental condition while entering service as per Rule B 5(a) of the Entitlement Rules. The fact remains that the respondent was denied promotion on medical grounds and the deterioration in his health shall, therefore, be presumed to have been caused due to service in the light of Rule 5(b) of the Entitlement C Rules. Moreover, simply recording a conclusion that the disability was not attributable to service, without giving a reason as to why the diseases are not deemed to be attributable to service, would show 0 lack of proper application of mind by the Medical Board. The view taken by the Medical Board cannot be upheld. The Tribunal did not commit any error in awarding disability pension to the respondent for 60% disability from the date of his discharge E along with 10% p.a. interest on the arrears. [Paras 16, 17] [538-D-H; 539-A,C] Ministry of Defence v. A. V. Damodaran (2009) 9 SCC 140: 2009 (13) SCR 416; Union of India v. Keshar Singh (2007) 12 SCC 675: 2007 (5) SCR F 408; Union of India v. Baljit Singh (1996) 11 SCC 315: 1996 (7) Suppl. SCR 626; Controller of Defence Accounts v. S. Balachandran Nair (2005) 13 SCC 128 : 2005 (4) Suppl. SCR 431; Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2013) 7 SCC 316 - G relied on H Case Law 2009 (13) SCR 416 2007 (5) SCR 408 1996 (7) Suppl. SCR
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.