LexUNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus RAM PRAKASH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c (2010] 7 S.C.R. 506 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. V. RAM PRAKASH (Civil Appeal No. 4887 of 2010) JULY 5, 2010 [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Service Law: Armed Forces - Air Force Service - Disability pension - Employee released from service on the opinion of the Release Medical Board that he suffered from 90% disabilities which were neither attributable to nor aggravated by Air Force 0 Service - HELD: Keeping in view the Pension Regulations and the Entitlement Rules it was unjustified for the single Judge of the High Court to set aside the concurrent opinions of the Appellate Board and the Release Medical Board - Further, in view of s. 100 CPC, the High Court should not have E set aside the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court, merely on the presumption that the plaintiff was undergoing arduous nature of job as he was in the Air Force Service - The findings given by the High Court were presumptive in nature and based on surmises and conjectures - Air Force Pension Regulations - Regulation F 153 - Appendix II - Entitlement Rules - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908·- s.100. The respondent, after having rendered 15 years of service in the Indian Air Force, was discharged in terms G of the opinion of the Release Medical Board which found him suffering from rational detachment and Immature Cataract of both the eyes. The Board assessed the composite disability at 90% and opined that the ·disabilities suffered by the respondent were neither ~ 506 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. RAM PRAKASH 507 attributable to nor aggravated by the Air Force service, A but were constitutional in nature. The claim of the respondent for disability pension having not been accepted by the authorities concerned, he filed a suit which was dismissed. His appeal having been dismissed by the first appellate court, he filed the second appeal, B which was allowed by the High Court. In the instant appeal filed by the employers, it was contended for the appellants that the High Court was not . justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact of the two courts below; and that the medical report C having a primacy, should have been given primary consideration and due weightage and the High Court was not justified in substituting the findings and opinion of the Medical Board by its own opinion. D Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. In view of Regulation 153 of the Air Force Pension Regulations, unless and until it is proved and established that an individual ha.s become disabled to the extent of more than 20% during his service career and E released from service due to such disability which is attributable to or aggravated by Air Force service, he is not entitled to receive the disability pension. The Rules In Appendix II to the Regulations are also clear on the issue that such entitlement should be considered and F decided giving emphasis and primacy to t11e opinion of the Medical Board constituted for the purpose. [para 19] . [515-H; 51 G·A·B] 1.2. In the report of the Release Medical Board, it is stated that though the diseases from which the G · respondent was suffering did not exist before.his entering the service, but the same were neithe:r attributable to nor apgravated by service during peace or underfield service . conditions. !he Medical Board has given a specific and H . 508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 7 S.C.R. A definite opinion that the said diseases were in no manner connected with service. The Appellate Medical Board upheld the opinion of the Medical Board. [para 18-19] [515- A:E] 8 2.1. The scope and limit of interfering with the finding of fact in a case u/s 100 CPC has been .reiterated by this Court time and again. Besides, the consistent view of this Court is that the opinion of the Medical Board would be given a primacy and a court should be slow in interfering ,. with and substituting its own opinion with that of the C Medical Board. [para 20-21] [516-C; 517-D-E] Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Ors. Vs. A. V. Damodaran (D) through LRs. and Ors. 2009 (13) SCR 416 = 2009 (9) SCC 140, Union of India & Ors. Vs. Keshar Singh D 2007 (5 ) SCR 408 = 2007 (12) SCC 67; Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) and Others Vs. S. Ba/achandran Nair2005 (4) Suppl. SCR 431 = 2005 (13) SCC 128; Union of India and Ors. Vs. Dhir Singh China (Colonel) Retd. 2003 ( 1 ) SCR 779 = 2003 (2) sec 382 and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.