1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No. 4409 OF 2011

EX. HAV MANI RAM BHAIRA ... Appellant(s)

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ... Respondent(s)

O R D E R

This appeal arises out of an Order dated 11.01.2011 passed by

the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Jaipur whereby Original

Application No. 59 of 2010 filed by the appellant for grant of

disability pension has been rejected.

The appellant was enrolled in the corps of EMI of the Indian

Army on 22nd February, 1984. It is not in dispute that at the time

of his enrolment, he was medically examined and found fit with no

disability or deformity whatsoever. He was in due course promoted

as Havaldar and eventually discharged from service under Rule

13(3)III(i) of the Army Rules in Medical Category SIHIA3 P1E1 on

account of his being a case of Bilateral PVD (Lower Limb) with a

disability assessed at 30% for life. The relevant Medical Board

Signature Not Verified

before whom the appellant was brought up for medical examination

Digitally signed by
SHASHI SAREEN
Date: 2016.02.26
08:34:32 IST
Reason:

however opined that the disability suffered by the appellant was

not attributable to or aggravated by military service. A first

 2

appeal filed by the appellant against the said decision was

rejected by the Appellate Authority by an Order dated 08.04.2008. A

second appeal also met with the same fate.

Dissatisfied with the view taken by the authorities, the

appellant filed Original Application No. 59 of 2010 before the

Armed Forces Tribunal, Jaipur. The Tribunal has, as noticed

earlier, dismissed the application filed by the appellant

primarily on the ground that the Medical Board, which is an expert

body, has held that since the disability suffered by the appellant

during the course of his service was not attributable to or

aggravated by such service, there was no question of granting any

disability pension to him. The present appeal, as noticed

earlier, calls in question the correctness of the said appeal.

No one has appeared on behalf of the appellant. Learned

counsel for the respondent has all the same taken us through the

order passed by the Tribunal. The legal position as regards the

approach to be adopted while dealing with the claim of disability

pension has been the subject matter of a long line of decisions of

this Court. Reference to each one of those decisions is

unnecessary as the case law on the subject has been reviewed by

this Court in Union of India Vs. Rajbir Singh 2015 (12) SCC 264

(Civil Appeal No. 2904 of 2011). This Court has in the said

decision taken note of the relevant Pension Regulations for the

 3

Army as also the Entitlement Rules for casualty, Pensionary

Awards, 1982 and the decisions rendered by this Court from time to

time wherein the said Rules have been interpreted. In para 11 of

the said judgment, this Court has summarised the following

governing principles:

i) 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;

ii) in the event of his being discharged from service on

medical grounds at any subsequent stage it must be
presumed that any such deterioration in his health which
has taken place is due to such military service;
iii) the disease 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; and
iv) if medical opinion holds that the disease, because of
which the individual was discharged, could not have been
detected on medical examination prior to acceptance of
service, reasons for the same shall be stated.”

This Court has then referred to Dharam Vir Singh Vs. UOI 2013

(7) SCC 316 and observed:

“15. The legal position as stated in Dharamvir Singh’s

case (supra) is, in our opinion, in tune with the
Pension Regulations, the Entitlement Rules and the
Guidelines issued to the Medical Officers. The essence
of the rules, as seen earlier, is that a member of the
armed forces is presumed to be in sound physical and
mental condition at the time of his entry into service
 4

if there is no note or record to the contrary made at

the time of such entry. More importantly, in the event
of his subsequent discharge from service on medical
ground, any deterioration in his health is presumed to
be due to military service. This necessarily implies
that no sooner a member of the force is discharged on
medical ground his entitlement to claim disability
pension will arise unless of course the employer is in a
position to rebut the presumption that the disability
which he suffered was neither attributable to nor
aggravated by military service. From Rule 14(b) of the
Entitlement Rules it is further clear that if the
medical opinion were to hold that the disease suffered
by the member of the armed forces could not have been
detected prior to acceptance for service, the Medical
Board must state the reasons for saying so. Last but
not the least is the fact that the provision for payment
of disability pension is a beneficial provision which
ought to be interpreted liberally so as to benefit those
who have been sent home with a disability at
times even before they completed their tenure in the
armed forces. There may indeed be cases, where the
disease was wholly unrelated to military service, but,
in order that denial of disability pension can be
justified on that ground, it must be affirmatively
proved that the disease had nothing to do with such
service. The burden to establish such a disconnect
would lie heavily upon the employer for otherwise the
rules raise a presumption that the deterioration in the
health of the member of the service is on account of
military service or aggravated by it. A soldier cannot
be asked to prove that the disease was contracted by him
on account of military service or was aggravated by the
same. The very fact that he was upon proper physical and
other tests found fit to serve in the army should rise
 5

as indeed the rules do provide for a presumption that he

was disease-free at the time of his entry into service.
That presumption continues till it is proved by the
employer that the disease was neither attributable to
nor aggravated by military service. For the employer to
say so, the least that is required is a statement of
reasons supporting that view. That we feel is the true
essence of the rules which ought to be kept in view all
the time while dealing with cases of disability
pension.”

Applying the above parameters to the case at hand, we are of

the view that the claim made by the appellant for payment of

disability pension has been wrongly declined by the authorities.

We say so because apart from stating that the disability suffered

by the appellant which was admittedly suffered during the course

of his service was not attributable to the military service or

aggravated by such service, there is nothing on record to suggest

as to how the Board has come to that conclusion. As observed in

Rajbir Singh's case (supra), in cases where the Medical Board has

not taken note of any pre-existing disease or disability with the

recruit, at the time of enrollment, there is a presumption that

disability detected at the time of his discharge from service was

attributable to military service. That presumption is no doubt

rebuttable but the burden to do so lies on the respondent-UOI.

This Court has in more than clear terms stated that the burden to

establish a disconnect between the disease and military service

 6

lies upon the employer. The soldier cannot be asked to prove that

the disease was contracted by him on account of military service

or was aggravated by the same. That is because the scheme of the

Rules gives rise to a presumption that in the case of soldiers who

are found physically fit and recruited into the Army any

disability subsequently noticed shall be presumed to be on

account of military service unless the Medical Board had made a

note of any such disease at the time of recruitment. There is no

such note on record in the present case suggesting any disease or

disability like the one suffered by the appellant at the time of

his recruitment. There is also no reason given by the Medical

Board for describing the disease to be not attributable to or

aggravated by military service. In that view, we find it

difficult to sustain the order passed by the Tribunal and those

passed by the authorities below.

We accordingly allow this appeal, set-aside the order passed

by the Tribunal and allow O.A. No. 59/2010 with a direction that

the appellant shall be entitled to disability pension at the rate

prescribed under the Rules w.e.f. the date he was released from

service. We further direct that the rounding off benefit in terms

of this Court's decision in Union of India and Ors. Vs. Ram Avtar

(Civil Appeal No. 418 of 2012 and connected matters) shall also be
 7

admissible to the appellant. Since the appellant has remain

unrepresented, there shall be no order as to costs.

................CJI.
(T.S.THAKUR)

.................J.
(R.BANUMATHI)

New Delhi,
Dated: 11th February, 2016.
 8

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 1695 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 22765 of 2011)

SATWINDER SINGH ... Appellant(s)

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ... Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

This appeal arises out of a judgment and Order dated

06.04.2011 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh whereby

TA No. 986 of 2010 filed by the appellant for grant of disability

pension has been dismissed.

The appellant was enrolled in the Sikh regiment of the Indian

Army in October, 1995. At the time of his enrolment, he was as

per the practice and prevalent procedure medically examined and

found fit in all respects for service in the Army. In due course

he successfully completed the prescribed training at the Sikh

Regiment Centre and got posted at Siddar on the Indo Pak

International Border when he claims to have fallen sick due to

stressful nature of his duties. The appellant's case is that on

the advice of his Company Commander, he proceeded on annual leave

but while at home his condition deteriorated leading to his

admission to military hospital, Pathankot from where he was

transferred to Military Hospital at Udhampur. A Medical Board

held at Military Hospital, Pathankot awarded permanent medical

 9

category “EEE” to the appellant as he was diagnosed to be

suffering from 'schizophrenia'. This eventually led to the

appellant's discharge from service on 31.08.1997 on the ground of

his being in low medical category “EEE”. The appellant's claim for

disability pension was examined and rejected by the CCDA (P)

Allahabad on the ground that the disease contracted by him was

neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.

Statutory appeals filed by the appellant also having failed, the

appellant filed Civil Suit No. 21 of 2001 before the Civil Judge,

Gurdaspur, Punjab inter alia praying for grant of disability

pension to him. The suit was contested by the respondent but

eventually decreed by the Trial Court in terms of its judgment and

order dated 16.05.2002. Respondent-UOI preferred Civil Appeal No.

236-A of 2006 to challenge the said decree which appeal was

allowed by the Appellate Court resulting in the dismissal of the

suit filed by the appellant. The Appellate Court held that the

disease with which the appellant suffered was constitutional and

not on account of military service. A regular second appeal was

then preferred by the appellant before the High Court of Punjab

and Haryana at Chandigarh which was transferred to the Armed

Forces Tribunal at Chandigarh and registered as TA No. 986 of

2010. The Tribunal has, as noticed earlier, dismissed the

transferred appeal in terms of the judgment and order impugned

before us.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length

 10

who have taken us through the orders passed by the First

Appellate Tribunal as also the Tribunal. The material facts are

not in dispute. It is not in dispute that on the date of the

recruitment of the appellant in the Army, he was subjected to

medical tests and found fit. It is also not disputed that the

Medical Board who conducted such medical check up did not make

note of any disability or disease whether related to the disease

of schizophrenia or otherwise. That the appellant under went

and successfully completed the prescribed military training which

is by all means rigorous, is also not in dispute. That he was

posted for regular duty on Indo-Pak border is also common ground.

The appellant's case in the above backdrop is that he got the

first bout of illness while he was serving at the Indo-Pak Border

under stressful conditions and was advised to take annual leave

by his Company Commander. While on leave his condition worsened

because of which he was admitted to the military hospital for

treatment eventually leading to his being diagnosed as a case of

schizophrenia. The discharge order that followed is according

to the appellant relateable to the said disease only.

The only question that falls for consideration in the above

backdrop is whether the disease with which the appellant was

diagnosed was attributable to military service. On behalf of the

appellant, it was contended that there is a presumption that the

disease was attributable to military service or atleast

aggravated by it. On the contrary learned counsel for the

 11

respondent-UOI argued that the medical opinion does not support

any such presumption. The medical opinion according to the

learned counsel suggests that the disease suffered by the

appellant is constitutional. The question then is as to what is

the true legal position and what is the correct approach to be

adopted in dealing with such a situation. The question is no

longer res integra in the light of decision of this Court in UOI

Vs. Rajbir Singh 2015 (12) SCC 264 where this Court has upon a

review of the case law on the subject summed up governing

principles as under:

i) 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;

ii) in the event of his being discharged from service on

medical grounds at any subsequent stage it must be
presumed that any such deterioration in his health which
has taken place is due to such military service;
iii) the disease 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; and
iv) if medical opinion holds that the disease, because of
which the individual was discharged, could not have been
detected on medical examination prior to acceptance of
service, reasons for the same shall be stated.”
This Court while dealing with an earlier decision in Dharam

Vir Singh Vs. UOI 2013 (7) SCC 316 observed :

 12

“15. The legal position as stated in Dharamvir

Singh’s case (supra) is, in our opinion, in tune with
the Pension Regulations, the Entitlement Rules and the
Guidelines issued to the Medical Officers. The essence
of the Rules, as seen earlier, is that a member of the
armed forces is presumed to be in sound physical and
mental condition at the time of his entry into service
if there is no note or record to the contrary made at
the time of such entry. More importantly, in the event
of his subsequent discharge from service on medical
ground, any deterioration in his health is presumed to
be due to military service. This necessarily implies
that no sooner a member of the force is discharged on
medical ground, his entitlement to claim disability
pension will arise unless the employer is in a position
to rebut the presumption that the disability which he
suffered was neither attributable to nor aggravated by
military service. From Rule 14(b) of the Entitlement
Rules it is further clear that if the medical opinion
were to hold that the disease suffered by the member of
the armed forces could not have been detected prior to
acceptance for service, the Medical Board must state the
reasons for saying so. Last but not the least is the
fact that the provision for payment of disability
pension is a beneficial provision which ought to be
interpreted liberally so as to benefit those who have
been sent home with a disability at times even before
they completed their tenure in the armed forces. There
may indeed be cases, where the disease was wholly
unrelated to military service, but, in order that denial
of disability pension can be justified on that ground,
it must be affirmatively proved that the disease had
nothing to do with such service. The burden to
establish such a disconnect would lie heavily upon the
employer for otherwise the rules raise a presumption
 13

that the deterioration in the health of the member of

the service is on account of military service or
aggravated by it. A soldier cannot be asked to prove
that the disease was contracted by him on account of
military service or was aggravated by the same. The very
fact that he was upon proper physical and other tests
found fit to serve in the army should rise as indeed the
rules do provide for a presumption that he was
disease-free at the time of his entry into service. That
presumption continues till it is proved by the employer
that the disease was neither attributable to nor
aggravated by military service. For the employer to say
so, the least that is required is a statement of reasons
supporting that view. That we feel is the true essence
of the rules which ought to be kept in view all the time
while dealing with cases of disability pension.”

In the light of the above, there is no gainsaying that a

presumption arises in favour of the appellant being fit on the date

of his recruitment and the disease subsequently detected being

attributable to military service. That presumption is no doubt

rebuttable. The question is whether the respondent have been able

to rebut the same. Reliance by learned counsel for the respondent

upon the report of the Medical Board to the effect that the

disease is constitutional does not in our view constitute

sufficient rebuttal of the presumption. That is because

schizophrenia is one of the scheduled diseases which can within the

comprehension of the Rules be contracted by those serving in the

Army on account of the conditions of their service. The Rules do

not exclude the possibility of a person who is fit on the date of

 14

recruitment becoming schizophrenic on account of the stressful and

difficult conditions of his service.

Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute that

there may be several circumstances leading to stressful conditions

and such conditions may indeed lead to an individual contracting

schizophrenia if posted in such conditions. Posting on the

Indo-Pak border was not according to the learned counsel such a

stressful condition where the appellant could possibly have been

exposed to the hazard of contracting such a disease. Be that as it

may the Medical Board has simply opined that the disease is

constitutional. There is no explanation or justification leave

alone any cogent analysis of the cause or the basis on which the

said opinion is recorded. Simply declaring that the disease is

constitutional would not in the facts and circumstances of the case

suffice.

In the result, we allow this appeal, set-aside the order

passed by the Tribunal and allow T.A. No. 986 of 2010 with the

direction that the appellant shall be entitled to claim disability

pension w.e.f. the date of his discharge from service with the

benefit of rounding off as admissible under the prevalent rules and

regulations. No costs.

................CJI.
(T.S.THAKUR)

.................J.
(R.BANUMATHI)

New Delhi,
Dated: 11th February, 2016.
 15

ITEM NO.106 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVII

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No(s). 4409/2011

EX. HAV. MANI RAM BHAIRA Appellant(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)

WITH

SLP(C) No. 22765/2011

(With Office Report)

Date : 11/02/2016 These appeals were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

For Appellant(s) Mr. Prasang Shukla, Adv.

Ms. Asha Upadhayay, Adv.
Mr. R. D. Upadhyay,Adv.

Mr. Anand Mishra, Adv.

Mr. A.Kumar Singh, Adv.
Dr. Charuwali Khanna, Adv.
Dr. (Mrs. ) Vipin Gupta,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. P.S.Narasimha, ASG,

Ms. B.Sunita Rao, Adv.
Mr. Anurag, Adv.
Mr. Ram Babu, Adav.
Mr. B. V. Balaram Das,Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

These appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.

(Shashi Sareen) (Veena Khera)

AR-cum-PS Court Master
(Two separate Signed orders are placed on the file)