UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus SURINDER SINGH RATHORE

Citation: [2008] 4 S.C.R. 909 · Decided: 13-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008) 4 S·.C.R. 909 
... 
')'-
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
A 
/ 
II. 
SURINDER SINGH RATHORE 
(Civil Appeal No. 1960 of 2008) 
MARCH 13, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] 
) 
~ 
Service Law: 
Pension Regulations for the Army - r 173 - Disability 
pension - Signal Man in Army, discharged from service on c 
account of 30% disability for two years - Claim for disability 
pension - Held: Not entitled - Report of Medical Board clearly 
indicates that ailment suffered by employee was neither 
attributable to nor aggravated due to Military Service ·- Thus, 
order of High Court directing the Government to grant disability 
pension to employee set aside· - Medical Service of Armed 
D 
Force Regulation 1983 - Regulation 423 
The respondent was employed as Signal Man in the 
Army in 1985. In 1991, he underwent treatment for disease E 
called 'Maculopathy (RT) Eye' but did not respond to the 
same. The Release Medical Board recommended that the 
respondent be released from service in medical category 
and CEE (permanent) which is lower than the category 
'AYE due to the aforesaid disease. He was discharged 
F 
~ 
from service on the ground of 30% disability for two years. 
He was granted certain amount on account of invalid 
gratuity and death cum retirement gratuity. The 
respondent claimed disability pension. The claim was 
-·rejected on the ground that the disease from which he 
was suffering was neither attributable to nor aggravated G 
by the military service, based on the report of the Release 
.... 
Medical Board. Respondent filed an appeal which was 
rejected. Respondent then filed a writ petition which was 
allowed directing the appellants-Government to grant him 
909 
H 
• 
910 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 4 S.C.R. 
"'(' 
~~ 
A disability pension. The Division Bench of High Court 
'-.. 
upheld the order. Hence the present app,eal. 
Allowing the appeal, the. Court 
HELD: The Medical Board's opinion was clearly to 
B the effect that the ailment suffered by the appellant was 
not attributable to the military service and also not 
aggravated due to it. The Single Judge and the Division 
~ "' 
Bench of High Court were not justified in holding· that the 
same was attributable to Military service and/or was 
c aggravated because of service. The respondent is not 
entitled to disability pension: However, on the facts and 
in the circumstances of the case payment, if any, already 
made to the respondent by way of disability pension, 
would not be recovered. [Para 9] [918-A, B, C] 
i 
D 
Union of India and Anr. v. Baljit Singh 1996 (11) SCC 
315; Union of India and Ors. v. Dhir Singh China, Colonel 
). 
(Retd.) 2003(2) SCC 382; Union of India and Ors. v. Keshar 
Singh 2007 (5) SCR 408 - relied on. 
E 
GIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: CivilAppeal No.1960 
of 2008 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 2.01.2006 of 
the High Court of Rajasthan, at Jodhpur in Civil Special Appeal 
(Writ) No. 540 of 2005 
F 
~ 
G.E. Vahanvati, S.G. Indra Sawhney andAnil Katiyarfor 
the Appellants. 
{ 
GP. Captain Karan .Singh Bhati, Aishwarya Bhati, Prabodh 
Kumar and Abhisek Guatam for the Respondent. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division 
H Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Bench, dismissing 
• 
.. 
). 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. SURINDER SINGH 
911 
RATHORE [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
• the Civil Special Appeal (writ) filed by the appellants. 
A 
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
Respondent was employed as a Signal Man· in the army on 
5.1.1985. Sometime in October, 1991, he was admitted to the 
Military Hospital, Jodhpur for treatment of a disease called 
'Maculopathy (RT) Eye'. Subsequently he was referred to the 
B 
Command Hospital in Pune for treatment and was later reverted 
back to the unit for normal duties with employability restrictions. 
The respondent continued to complain of diminished vision and 
WC\S re-admitted to the Military Hospital, Jodhpur. Since he was 
not responding to the treatment, he was referred to the Release C 
Medical Board. 
On 1.5.1993, said Board completed the said investigation 
and recommended that the respondent be released from service 
in medical category and CEE (permanent) which is lower than 0 
the category "AYE" due to the aforesaid disease. The disability 
of the respondent was assessed as 30% for two years and 
considered as neither attributable to nor aggr

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