Dear Veterans,

Indian Military Veterans

Dear Veterans,

The attachement consisting RDOA letter and Supreme Court Judgement which emphsizes that when there is no note of any disease recorded in the documents offrs/PBOR at the time comissioning and enrolement, such diseases are deemed to be occured during Service and attributable/aggravated by Mil Service.

I am one of the sufferer when three med boards given aggravated by Service, including the Recat Med Bd(held at MH Sec'bad on 31 May 2006) given 30% Disability But the Release Med Bd which held on 03-2-2007 made it Not Aggravated to Mil Service but at 30% Disability. Strange is that the composition of the Bd Members of Release Med Bd are all

most the same of Recat Med Bd of 31 May 2006. My two appeals were rejected by the Integrated HQ of Min of Def(Army). But after a gap of 7 years I knocked the AFT, Chennai and the verdict is in my favor in Feb this year giving 3 months time for implementation. 

Of course I have to yet to get Sanction from Govt of India through AG's Branch PS4/5 unless the G of I appeal to Hon'ble Suprement Court.But I am doubtful that they may not appeal in the Light of Hon'ble Supreme Courts Judgement.Some of you may anxiety to know my disability. It is Primary Hypertension.

Earlier I thought to put my case for the information to applicable veterans who have left hope.

As Brought out by Col Annam Prabhakar Gupta, I am sharing my case in support of his advice that we must go to AFT chennai , if any injustice done.

Jai Jawan Jai Veterans Jai IESM

Regards

Lt col SS Rao Namana(retd)

==========================================================================================

                                                                                                Dated: 10 Oct 2013

To,

Secretary,

Dept of Ex Servicemen Welfare,

South Block, New Delhi.

 Controller General of Defence Accounts (CGDA)

 PCDA Pensions

Draupadi Ghat,

Allahabad                                                                                                         

PAYMENT OF DISABILITY PENSION : NEITHER ATTRIBUTED  NOR AGGRAVATED (NANA) BY MILITARY SERVICE

 Dear Sir,

1.         It is intimated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its Judgment in the case no Civil Appeal 4949 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No 2940 of 2010 (Dharamvir Singh vs UOI) upheld the judgment passed by the Single judge dated 20 May 2004. As elaborated in Para 28 and 29 of the said judgment, the court has made it absolutely clear that ‘if a person at the time of entry into service was in sound physical and mental health and no entry of any disability exists in his record; then any disability occurring to the individual would be deemed to have occurred in service and would be attributed to and aggravated to military service’ and therefore such a person would be entitled to disability pension if it is 20 % or more. E-copy of Judgment attached.

 2.        There are a large number of Officers/JCOs/ORs who have been denied disability pension due to the remark ‘Neither attributed  nor aggravated due to Military Service’ endorsed in their release medical board proceedings although such disabilities occurred during their service tenure and they had disability of 20% or more.

 3.        In view of facts as stated above, it is requested that the cases of such individuals who have proceeded on retirement without getting disability pension should be reviewed and the disability pension on account of ‘NANA’ which has been denied to them should be paid retrospectively.

 4.        It is not expected of every affected person to approach the ‘Courts’ individually or collectively to seek redressal for admissibility of the said disability pension, once the ratio has been established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the instant case. It will only increase the work load of the courts.

 5.        Retired Defence Officers Association (RDOA) will be constrained to claim interest and relief from the Apex Court in case the disability pension benefit is denied as has happened in the IV CPC Rank Pay Case. It is hoped that action would be taken to give disability pension to the affected ‘Veterans’.

 Thanking you,

Lt Col Satwant Singh (Retd)

Secretary

For RDOA

 Copy to:

 The Director,

Addl Dte Gen Pers Services,

PS 5, AG’s Branch, AHQ,

Room No 419, A Wing, Sena Bhawan

DHQ PO, New Delhi 110011

 DDG Veterans Cell,

AG’s Branch AHQ

 =========================================================================================== 

*          *          *          *          *

                                                                  REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4949  OF 2013

                   (arising out of SLP(C)No. 6940 of 2010)

DHARAMVIR SINGH                                    .... APPELLANT

                             VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                           ....RESPONDENTS

                               J U D G M E N T

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

      Leave granted.

2.    This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against  the  judgment

dated 31st July, 2009 in LPA No.26 of 2004 passed by the Division  Bench  of

the High Court of Himachanl  Pradesh,  Shimla  whereby  the  Division  Bench

allowed the appeal preferred by  the  Union  of  India  and  set  aside  the

judgment dated 20th May, 2004 passed by the learned Single  Judge  in  Civil

Writ Petition No.660 of 2004.

3.    The questions involved in this case are:

      (i)   Whether a member of Armed Forces can be presumed to have been in

      sound physical and mental condition upon entering service  in  absence

      of disabilities or disease noted or recorded at the time of entrance.

      (ii)  Whether the appellant is entitled for disability pension.

4.    The factual matrix of the case is as follows:

      The appellant was enrolled as Sepoy in the Corps  of  Signals  of  the

Indian Army on 15th June, 1985. Having rendered about 9 years of service  in

Indian Army he was boarded out of the service with effect  from  Ist  April,

1994 on the ground of 20% permanent disability as  he  was  found  suffering

from "Genrealised seizure (Epilepsy)".  The Medical  Board  of  Army  opined

that the "disability is not related to military service".  On the  basis  of

disability report, no disability pension was granted to  him  and  when  the

appellant preferred representation the respondents rejected such  prayer  by

an order dated 12th  December,  1995  on  the  ground  that  the  disability

suffered by the appellant was neither attributable to nor aggravated by  the

military service.

5.    The appellant approached the High Court of Himachal Pradesh  in  Civil

Writ Petition No.660 of 2004 seeking a direction  to  respondents  to  grant

disability pension with effect from 1st April, 1994.  Learned  Single  Judge

by judgment dated 20th May, 2004 on observing  that  there  was  nothing  on

record to show that the appellant was suffering  from  any  disease  at  the

time of his initial recruitment in the Indian Army  held  that  the  disease

would be deemed to be attributable to or aggravated by  the  Army  services.

Therefore, in terms of Regulation 173 of Pension Regulations for  the  Army,

1961 the appellant is  eligible  for  disability  pension.   Learned  Single

Judge allowed the writ  petition  and  directed  the  respondents  to  grant

disability pension to the appellant as per rules with effect from  the  date

he was invalidated out of service and to pay the entire arrears  of  pension

within three months else they shall  be  liable  to  pay  interest  on  such

arrears at the rate of 9% per annum.

6.    The Union of India challenged  the  decision  of  the  learned  Single

Judge before the Division Bench of the High Court  of  Himachal  Pradesh  in

LPA No.26 of 2004. On behalf of the Union of India  it  was  contended  that

disease"generalized seizure" was constitutional in nature and the  same  has

not been found by the Re-Survey Medical Board attributable or aggravated  by

military service. It was also contended that the learned  Single  Judge  had

not taken into consideration the relevant law while allowing  the  petition.

The Division Bench referring to a judgment of this Court in Union  of  India

and others vs. Keshar Singh, (2007) 12 SCC 675, and Rule  7  as  noticed  in

the said judgment held as follows and set aside  the  order  passed  by  the

learned Single Judge:

           "The respondent was discharged from  the  military  after  being

           placed in Low Medical  Category  (CEE).  The  Re-survey  Medical

           Board had  opined  the  disability  of  the  respondent  neither

           attributable nor  aggravated  military  service.  He  was  found

           suffering from 'generalised seizure'. The learned  Single  Judge

           has purportedly referred  to  paragraph  7(b)  of  Appendix-IIas

           referred to in Regulation 48, 173 and 185 while  coming  to  the

           conclusion that  the  respondent  was  not  suffering  from  the

           disease on account of  which  he  was  invalidated  out  of  the

           service at the time of his initial  recruitment  in  the  Indian

           Army. However, the learned Single Judge has omitted to take note

           of paragraph 7(c) of Appendix-II as referred  to  in  Regulation

           48, 173 and  185  of  the  Pension  Regulations  for  the  Army,

           1961(Part-I).

           The legal position raised in this Letters Patent  Appeal  is  no

           more res integra in view of law laid down by their Lordships  of

           the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. Versus Keshar

           Singh, 2007 (4) SLR 100. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble  Supreme

           Court were also seized of the matter wherein the  Medical  Board

           had given a clear opinion that the illness was not  attributable

           to military service. In this case also the soldier has developed

           schizophrenia. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have

           held as under:

              "In  support  of  the  appeal  learned  Additional  Solicitor

              General submitted that both  learned  Single  Judge  and  the

              Division Bench have lost sight of para 7(c).  Both  7(b)  and

              7(c) have to be read together. They read as follows:

              "7(b) A 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  service.  However,  if

              medical opinion holds for reasons  to  be  stated,  that  the

              disease could not have been detected on  medical  examination

              prior to acceptance for  service  the  disease  will  not  be

              deemed to have arisen during service.

              7(c) If a disease is accepted as having arisen in service. It

              must also  be established that  the  conditions  of  military

              service determined or contributed to the onset of the disease

              and that the conditions were due to the circumstances of duty

              in military service."

           A bare reading of the aforesaid provision makes  it  clear  that

           ordinarily if a disease has led to the discharge  of  individual

           it shall ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in  service  if  no

           note of it was made at the time of individual's  acceptance  for

           military service. An exception, however, is carvd out,  i.e.  if

           medical opinion holds for reasons to be stated that the  disease

           could not have been detected by Medical Examination Board  prior

           to acceptance for service, the disease would not  be  deemed  to

           have arisen during service. Similarly,  clause  (c)  of  Rule  7

           makes the position clear that if a disease is accepted as having

           arisen  in  service  it  must  also   be  established  that  the

           condition of military service determined or contributed  to  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.

           In view of the legal position referred to  above  and  the  fact

           that the Medical Board's opinion was clearly to the effect  that

           the illness suffered by the respondent was not  attributable  to

           the military service, both the  learned  Single  Judge  and  the

           Division  Bench  were  not   justified   in   their   respective

           conclusion.   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.  The appeal is  allowed

           but in the circumstances without any order as to costs."

           The  disease  developed  by  the  petitioner  i.e.  'generalised

           seizore' is constitutional in nature and the  Re-survey  Medical

           Board had specifically  opined,  as  noticed  above,   that  the

           disability  was  neither  attributable  nor  aggravated  by  the

           military service. The opinion of the Re-survey Medical Board has

           to be given primacy.

           Accordingly, the learned  Single  Judge  has  erred  in  law  by

           allowing the writ petition only on the basis of plain reading of

           paragraph 7(b) of Appendix-IIas referred to  in  Regulation  48,

           173 and 185 of the Pension Regulation for the Army, 1961  (Part-

           I). He has omitted to see  clauses  7(c)  of  Appendix-IIof  the

           Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Pat-I).

           Consequently, in view of the observation made  hereinabove,  the

           Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. The judgment of learned Single

           Judge is set aside. No costs."

7.    Learned counsel for  the  appellant  contended  that  the  Entitlement

Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 have been made  effective  w.e.f.

Ist January,  1982  and  the  set  of  rules  is  required  to  be  read  in

conjunction with the Guide to Medical  Officers  (Military  Pension),  1980.

Referring to Rule 423(c) it was submitted that the cause  of  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  the

conditions and circumstances of duty in  the  Armed  Forces  determined  and

contributed to the onset of the disease.  A 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  individual's  acceptance

for service in the Armed Forces. However,  if  medical  opinion  holds,  for

reasons to be stated that the  disease  could  not  have  been  detected  on

medical examination prior to acceptance for service, the  disease  will  not

be deemed to have arisen during service.

8.    Reliance was placed on Rules 5,6,9 and 14 to show that  the  appellant

was entitled to the benefit and the respondents  ought  to  have  given  the

same in consideration of the said rules.  It was further contended  that  it

will be for the service authorities to make all practical  investigation  to

establish the alleged fact, calling  upon  the  claimant,  if  necessary  to

assist and to show that  the  employee  was  suffering  from  disability  or

disease at the time of appointment and such disease is not  attributable  to

or aggravated by service.

9.    Per contra, according to the respondents, the question is no more  res

integra having settled by this Court in Keshar Singh (supra).

10.   Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union  of  India  submitted

that in each case when disability pension is sought for and  claim  is  made

it must be affirmatively established as a matter of fact as to  whether  the

disease is due to military service or that it  was  aggravated  by  military

service which contributed to invalidation from service.  According  to  him,

in the  present  case,  the  Medical  Board  has  clearly  opined  that  the

invalidating   disease'left   partial   motor   seizure    with    secondary

generalisation' is not related  to  military  service.   The  Medical  Board

having examined the  appellant  and  having  taken  into  consideration  all

evidence before it  once  submitted  its  opinion,  it  is  binding  on  the

parties.  It was contended that the opinion of the Board has been  given  by

the medical experts approved  by  a  superior  Medical  Officer,  Brigadier.

Unless the primary condition in Regulation 173 is  satisfied  the  appellant

cannot derive advantage. He also placed reliance on Rules 6,8 14(c)  and  17

of "Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982" and referred  to

decisions of this Court to suggest that the appellant  is  not  entitled  to

disability pension in view of the opinion of the Medical Board comprised  of

experts in the field.

11.   In the impugned judgment dated 31st July, 2009, the Division Bench  of

the High Court placed reliance on  Rules  7(a),  7(b)  and  7(c)  which  was

noticed by this Court in Keshar Singh (supra). In   Keshar  Singh(supra),  a

judgment of  the  Division  Bench  of  the  Allahabad  High  Court  granting

disability pension was challenged before this Court.   In  the  said  matter

paragraph 7(b) of Appendix-II referred to in Regulations 48, 173 and 185  of

the 'Pension Regulations for the Army,  1961'.  In  support  of  the  appeal

before this  Court  in  Keshar  Singh(supra)  learned  Additional  Solicitor

General contended that the Division Bench of the High Court has  lost  sight

of Para 7(c) and  both  the  paragraphs  7(b)  and  7(c)  have  to  be  read

together. The relevant portion of the  judgment  of  this  Court  in  Keshar

Singh (supra) is quoted hereunder:

           "2. Background facts giving rise to the present  dispute  is  as

           follows:

                 The respondent was enrolled as Rifleman on  15.11.1976  and

           was discharged from Army on 18.10.1986. It was found that he was

           suffering from Schizophrenia  and  the  Medical  Board's  report

           indicated his non-suitability for continuance in  army.  Medical

           Board opined that the disability did not exist  before  entering

           service and it was not connected with  service.  An  appeal  was

           preferred  before  prescribed  appellate  authority  which   was

           dismissed on 16.4.1989. Respondent filed a writ  petition  which

           was allowed by learned Single Judge and as noted  above  by  the

           impugned judgment the special appeal was dismissed. Both learned

           Single Judge and  the  Division  Bench  held  that  it  was  not

           mentioned at the time of  entering  to  army  service  that  the

           respondent suffered from  Schizophrenia  and  therefore  it  was

           attributable to army service. Both learned Single Judge and  the

           Division Bench referred to para 7(b) of the Appendix II referred

           to in Regulations 48, 173 and 185 of  the  Pension  Regulations,

           1961 to hold that if any disease  has  led  to  the  individuals

           discharge it shall be ordinarily deemed to have  arisen  in  the

           service if no note of it was made at the  time  of  individual's

           acceptance for military service. Accordingly, it was  held  that

           the respondent was entitled to disability pension.

           3. In support of the appeal learned Additional Solicitor General

           submitted that both learned Single Judge and the Division  Bench

           have lost sight of para 7(c). Both 7(b) and 7(c) have to be read

           together. They read as follows"

              "7 (b) A 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. However, if medical  opinion

              holds for reasons to be stated, that the  disease  could  not

              have been detected on medical examination prior to acceptance

              for service the disease will not be  deemed  to  have  arisen

              during service.

              7(c) If a disease is accepted as having arisen in service, it

              must also be established  that  the  conditions  of  military

              service determined or contributed to the onset of the disease

              and that the conditions were due to the circumstances of duty

              in military service.""

12.   In their counter-affidavit filed by the respondents before this  Court

in the present case, it is accepted that old Rules 7(a),  (b)  and  7(c)  of

the erstwhile Rules/Regulations were taken into consideration by this  Court

in Keshar Singh (supra) which has  since been revised by Rule 14 of  revised

'Entitlement Rules for Casualty  Pensionary  Awards,  1982'.  For  the  said

reason, we are not relying on or referring to Rule  7(b)  and  7(c)  of  the

erstwhile Rules. According to the respondents, Rule 14(a), 14(b), 14(c)  and

14(d) of the "Entitlement Rules for  Casualty  Pensionary  Awards  to  Armed

Forces Personnel, 1982" as amended vide Government  of  India,  Ministry  of

Defence letter No.1(1)/81/D(Pen-C) dated 20th June, 1996 needs to  be  taken

into consideration along with the other  provisions  of  Entitlement  Rules,

1982.

13.   Per contra, according to the learned counsel for  the  appellant,  the

"Entitlement Rules  for  Casualty  Pensionary  Awards,  1982"  contained  in

Appendix-II of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 is applicable  and

not the Rules referred  to  and  quoted  in  the  counter-affidavit  by  the

respondents.

14.   There being difference in the two sets of the  Entitlement  Rules  for

Casualty Pensionary Awards referred to by the counsel  for  the  respondents

and the appellant, on the direction of  the  Court  photostat  copy  of  the

'Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961(Part-I)' along with  Appendix  (ii),

(referred to  in  Regulations  1948,  1973  and  1985),  'Guide  to  Medical

Officers (Military Pensions) 2002' published by  the  Ministry  of  Defence,

Government of India, New Delhi has been produced. We  also  called  for  the

Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 from Library which contains Appendix-

II- 'Entitlement  Rules  for  Casualty  Pensionary  Awards,  1982'  for  our

perusal, and we find that it  is  similar  to  the  photostat  copy  of  the

Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961(Part-I) published by the Ministry  of

Defence, Government of India, New Delhi. The respondents in  their  counter-

affidavit has not made clear as to when the Government  of  India,  Ministry

of Defence letter No.1(1)/81/D(Pen-C) dated 20th June, 1996 was notified  in

Gazette amending the Rules and why no such amendment has been shown  in  the

published Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982.  In  their

counter-affidavit they have not mentioned that the rules extracted in  their

counter-affidavit is true copy of its original.

15.   For the said reason, we will rely on the "Pension Regulations for  the

Army, 1961" and Appendix-II-  'Entitlement  Rules  for  Casualty  Pensionary

Awards, 1982' published by the Government of India,  we  will  also  discuss

the Rules 14(a), 14(b), 14 (c) and 14(d) as quoted  and  relied  on  by  the

respondents.

16.   Regulation 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army,  1961  relates  to

the primary conditions for the grant of  disability  pension  and  reads  as

follows:

           "Regulation  173.  Unless  otherwise  specifically  provided   a

           disability pension consisting of service element and  disability

           element may be granted to an individual who is  invalidated  out

           of service on account of a disability which is  attributable  to

           or aggravated by military service in non-battle casualty and  is

           assessed 20 per cent or over

                 The question whether a disability is  attributable  to  or

           aggravated by military service shall  be  determined  under  the

           rule in Appendix II."

17.   From a bare perusal of the Regulation  aforesaid,  it  is  clear  that

disability pension in normal course is to be granted to  an  individual  (i)

who is invalidated out of service  on  account  of  a  disability  which  is

attributable to or aggravated by military service and (ii) who  is  assessed

at 20% or over disability unless otherwise it is specifically provided.

18.   A disability is 'attributable to or aggravated  by  military  service'

to be determined  under  the  "Entitlement  Rules  for  Casualty  Pensionary

Awards, 1982', as shown in Appendix-II. Rule 5 relates to  approach  to  the

Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 based on  presumption

as shown hereunder:

                 "Rule5 . The approach to the  question  of  entitlement  to

                 casualty pensionary awards and evaluation  of  disabilities

                 shall be based on the following presumptions:

                 PRIOR TO AND DURING SERVICE

   a) member is presumed to have been in sound physical and mental condition

      upon entering except as to physical disabilities noted or recorded  at

      the time of entrance.

   b) In the event of his subsequently  being  discharged  from  service  on

      medical grounds any deterioration in his health which has taken  place

      is due to service."

      From Rule 5 we find that a general presumption is to be drawn  that  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.  If a person is discharged  from  service  on  medical

ground for deterioration in his  health  it  is  to  be  presumed  that  the

deterioration in the health has taken place due to service.

19.   "Onus of proof" is not on claimant as  apparent  from  Rule  9,  which

reads as follows:

                 "Rule 9. ONUS OF PROOF- The claimant shall  not  be  called

                 upon to prove the conditions of entitlements.  He/she  will

                 receive the benefit of any reasonable doubt.  This  benefit

                 will  be  given  more  liberally  to   the   claimants   in

                 field/afloat service cases."

      From a bare perusal of Rule 9 it  is  clear  that  a  member,  who  is

declared disabled from service, is not required to prove his entitlement  of

pension and such pensionary benefits to  be  given  more  liberally  to  the

claimants.

20.    With  respect  to  disability  due  to  diseases  Rule  14  shall  be

applicable which as  per  the  Government  of  India  publication  reads  as

follows:

           "Rule 14. DISEASE- In respect of diseases,  the  following  rule

           will be observed:-

                 (a)Cases in which it  is  established  that  conditions  of

                 Military Service did not determine  or  contribute  to  the

                 onset of the disease but influenced the subsequent  courses

                 of the disease will fall for acceptance  on  the  basis  of

                 aggravation.

                 (b)A 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.  However,  if   medical

                 opinion holds, for reasons to be stated, that  the  disease

                 could not have been detected on medical  examination  prior

                 to acceptance for service, the disease will not  be  deemed

                 to have arisen during service.

                 (c)If a disease is accepted as having arisen in service, it

                 must also be established that the  conditions  of  military

                 service determined or  contributed  to  the  onset  of  the

                 disease  and  that  the  conditions   were   due   to   the

                 circumstances of duty in military service."

      As per  clause  (b)  of  Rule  14  a  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.

      As per clause(c) of Rule 14 if a disease is accepted as having  arisen

in service, it must also be established  that  the  conditions  of  military

service determined or contributed to the onset of the disease and  that  the

conditions were due to the circumstances of duty in military service.

21.   If we notice Rule 14(a), 14(b), 14(c)  and  14(d)  as  quoted  by  the

respondents in their counter-affidavit, it  makes  no  much  difference  for

determination of issue. According to the  respondents,  Rule  14(a),  14(b),

14(c) and 14(d) as amended vide Government of  India,  Ministry  of  Defence

letter No.1(1)/81/D(Pen-C) dated 20th June, 1996 reads as follows:

           "Rule 14(a)- For acceptance of  a  disease  as  attributable  to

           military service, the following two conditions must be satisfied

           simultaneously:

   i) That the disease has arisen during the period of military service, and

  ii) That the disease has been caused by the conditions  of  employment  in

      military service.

           Rule 14(b)- If  medical  authority  holds,  for  reasons  to  be

           stated, that  the  disease  although  present  at  the  time  of

           enrolment could not have been detected  on  medical  examination

           prior to acceptance for service, the disease, will not be deemed

           to have arisen during service. In case where it  is  established

           that the military service did not contribute  to  the  onset  or

           adversely affect the course disease,  entitlement  for  casualty

           pensionary award will not be conceded even if  the  disease  has

           arisen during service.

           Rule 14(c)- Cases in which it is established that conditions  of

           military service did not determine or contribute to the onset of

           the  disease  but,  influenced  the  subsequent  course  of  the

           disease, will fall for acceptance on the basis of aggravation.

           Rule 14(d)- In case of congenital, hereditary, degenerative  and

           constitutional diseases which are detected after the  individual

           has joined service, entitlement to disability pension shall  not

           be conceded unless it is clearly established that the course  of

           such disease was adversely affected due to  factors  related  to

           conditions of military services."

22.   As per Rule 14(a) we notice  that  for  acceptance  of  a  disease  as

attributable to military service, conditions are to be  satisfied  that  the

disease has been arisen during the  military  service,  and  caused  by  the

conditions of employment in military service which is similar to Rule  14(c)

of the printed version as relied on by the appellant. Rule  14(b)  cited  by

the respondents is also similar to published Rule 14.

      Rule 14(c) cited by the respondents relates to the cases in  which  it

is established that conditions of military  service  did  not  determine  or

contribute to the onset  of  the  disease  but,  influenced  the  subsequent

course  of  the  disease,  will  fall  for  acceptance  on  the   basis   of

aggravation.

      Rule 14(d) cited by the respondents  relates  to  diseases  which  are

detected  after  the  individual  has  joined  the  service,  which  entails

disability pension but it is to be  established  that  the  course  of  such

disease was adversely affected due  to  factors  related  to  conditions  of

military service.

23.   If the amended version of Rule 14  as  cited  by  the  respondents  is

accepted to be the Rule applicable in the present case, even then  the  onus

of proof shall lie on the employer-respondents in terms of Rule  9  and  not

the claimant and in case of any reasonable doubt the benefit  will  go  more

liberally to the claimants.

24.   The Rules to be followed by Medical Board in disposal of special cases have been shown under Chapter VIII of the” General Rules of Guide to

Medical Officers (Military   Pensions)   2002. Rule   423   deals   with

"Attributability   to service" relevant of which reads as follows:

           "423(a)For the purpose of determining whether  the  cause  of  a

           disability  or  death  resulting  from  disease  is  or  is  not

           attributable to service, it  is  immaterial  whether  the  cause

           giving rise to the disability  or  death  occurred  in  an  area

           declared to be  a  Field Service/Active  Service  area  or  under

           normal peace conditions. It is however, essential to  establish

           whether the disability or death bore a  casual  connection  with

           the  service  conditions.   All   evidence   both   direct   and

           circumstantial  will  be  taken  into  account  and  benefit  of

           reasonable doubt, if any, will be given to the  individual.  The

           evidence to be accepted as reasonable doubt for the  purpose  of

           these instructions should be  of  a  degree  of  cogency,  which

           though not  reaching  certainty,  nevertheless  carries  a  high

           degree of probability. In this connection, it will be remembered

           that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond  a

           shadow of doubt.  If  the  evidence  is  so  strong  against  an

           individual as to leave only  a  remote  possibility  in  his/her

           favour, which can be dismissed with the sentence  "of course  it

           is possible but not in the least probable" the  case  is  proved

           beyond reasonable doubt. If on the other hand, the  evidence  be

           so evenly balanced as  to  render  impracticable  a  determinate

           conclusion one way or the other, then the case would be  one  in

           which the benefit of the doubt could be given more liberally  to

           the individual,  in  cases  occurring  in  Field  Service/Active

           Service areas.

           (c). 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  the

           conditions  and  circumstances  of  duty  in  the  Armed  Forces

           determined and contributed to the onset of the  disease.  Cases,

           in which it is  established  that  Service  conditions  did  not

           determine  or  contribute  to  the  onset  of  the  disease  but

           influenced  the  subsequent  course  of  the  disease,  will  be

           regarded as aggravated by the service. A 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 Service in the Armed  Forces.

           However, if medical opinion holds, for reasons tobe stated  that

           the disease could not have been detected on medical  examination

           prior to acceptance for service, the disease will not be  deemed

           to have arisen during service.

           (d).The question, whether a disability or death  resulting  from

           disease is attributable to or aggravated by service or not, will

           be decided as regards its medical aspects by a Medical Board  or

           by the medical officer who  signs  the  Death  Certificate.  The

           Medical Board/Medical Officer will specify reasons for their/his

           opinion. The opinion of the Medical Board/Medical Officers,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.  The  question  whether  the  cause  and  the   attendant

           circumstances can be accepted as attributable  to/aggravated  by

           service for the purpose of pensionary benefits will, however, be

           decided by the pension sanctioning authority."

25.   Therefore, as per Rule 423 following procedures to be followed by the

Medical Board:

      (i) Evidence both direct and circumstantial to be taken into account

      by the Board and benefit of reasonable doubt, if any would go  to  the

      individual;

      (ii) a disease which has led to an  individual's  discharge  or  death

      will ordinarily be  treated to have been arisen in service, if no note

      of it was made at the time of individual's acceptance for  service  in

      Armed Forces.

      (iii) If the medical opinion holds that the  disease  could  not  have

      been detected on medical examination prior to acceptance  for  service

      and the disease will not be deemed to have been arisen during military

      service the Board is required to state the reason for the same.

26.   'Chapter II' of the Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pensions)  2002

relates to "Entitlement : General Principles".  In the opening paragraph  1,

it is made clear that the Medical Board should examine cases  in  the  light

of the etiology of the particular disease  and  after  considering  all  the

relevant particulars of a case, record their  conclusions  with  reasons  in

support, in clear terms and in a  language  which  the  Pension  Sanctioning

Authority would be able to appreciate fully in determining the  question  of

entitlement according to the rules. Medical officers should comment  on  the

evidence both for and against the concession of entitlement;  the  aforesaid

paragraph reads as follows:

           "1.   Although the certificate of a properly constituted medical

           authority vis-à-vis the invaliding disability, or  death,  forms

           the  basis  of  compensation  payable  by  the  government,  the

           decision to admit or refuse entitlement is not solely  a  matter

           which can be  determined  finally  by  the  medical  authorities

           alone.  It  may  require  also  the   consideration   of   other

           circumstances  e.g.  service  conditions,  pre-and  post-service

           history, verification  of  wound  or  injury,  corroboration  of

           statements, collecting and weighing the value of  evidence,  and

           in some instances,  matters  of  military  law  and  discipline.

           Accordingly, Medical Boards should examine cases in the light of

           the etiology of the particular disease and after considering all

           the relevant particulars of a  case,  record  their  conclusions

           with reasons in support, in clear terms and in a language  which

           the Pension Sanctioning Authority, a lay body, would be able  to

           appreciate fully in  determining  the  question  of  entitlement

           according to the rules.  In  expressing  their  opinion  Medical

           Officers should comment on the evidence both for and against the

           concession of entitlement. In this connection, it is as well  to

           remember that a bare medical opinion without reasons in  support

           will be of no value to the Pension Sanctioning Authority."

       Paragraph  6  suggests  the  procedure  to  be  followed  by  service

authorities if there is no note, or adequate note, in  the  service  records

on which the claim is based.

      Paragraph 7 talks of evidentiary value attached to  the  record  of  a

member's condition at  the  commencement  of  service,  .e.g.  pre-enrolment

history of an  injury,  or  disease  like  epilepsy,  mental  disorder  etc.

Further, guidelines have been laid down at paragraphs 8  and  9,  as  quoted

below:

           7.    Evidentiary value is attached to the record of a  member's

           condition at the commencement of service, and such  record  has,

           therefore, to be accepted unless any  different  conclusion  has

           been reached due to the inaccuracy of the record in a particular

           case or  otherwise.  Accordingly,  if  the  disease  leading  to

           member's invalidation out of service or death while in  service,

           was not noted  in  a  medical  report  at  the  commencement  of

           service, the inference would be that the  disease  arose  during

           the period of member's military service.  It  may  be  that  the

           inaccuracy or incompleteness  of  service  record  on  entry  in

           service was due to a non-disclosure of the  essential  facts  by

           the member, e.g., pre-enrolment history of an injury or  disease

           like epilepsy, mental disorder etc. It may also be that owing to

           latency or obscurity  of  the  symptoms,  a  disability  escaped

           detection on enrolment. Such lack of recognition may affect  the

           medical categorization of the member on enrolment  and/or  cause

           him to perform duties harmful to his condition. Again, there may

           occasionally  be  direct  evidence  of  the  contraction  of   a

           disability, otherwise than by service. In all such cases, though

           the disease cannot be considered to have been caused by service,

           the question of aggravation  by  subsequent  service  conditions

           will need examination.

                 The following are some of the  diseases  which  ordinarily

           escape detection on enrolment:-

                 (a)Certain congenital abnormalities which  are  latent  and

                 only discoverable on full investigations,  e.g.  CONGENITAL

                 DEFECT OF SPINE, SPINA BIFIDA, SACRALIZATION,

                 (b)Certain  familial   and   hereditary   diseases,   e.g.,

                 HAEMOPHILIA, CONGENTIAL SYPHILIS, HAEMOGIOBINOPATHY.

                 (C)Certain diseases of the heart and blood  vessels,  e.g.,

                 CORONORY ATHEROSCLEROSIS, RHEUMATIC FEVER.

                 (d)Diseases  which  may   be   undetectable   by   physical

                 examination on enrolment, unless adequate history is  given

                 at the time by  the  member,  e.g.,  GASTRIC  AND  DUODENAL

                 ULCERS, EPILEPSY, MENTAL DISORDERS, HIV INFECTIONS.

                 (e)  Relapsing  forms  of  mental  disorders   which   have

                 intervals of normality.

                 (f) Diseases which have periodic  attacks  e.g.,  BRONCHIAL

                 ASTHMA, EPILEPSY, CSOM ETC.

           8.    The question whether the invalidation or death of a member

           has resulted from service conditions, has to be  judged  in  the

           light of the record of the member's condition  on  enrolment  as

           noted in service documents and of all other  available  evidence

           both direct and indirect.

                 In addition to any documentary evidence  relative  to  the

           member's condition to entering the service and  during  service,

           the  member  must  carefully  and  closely  questioned  on   the

           circumstances which led  to  the  advent  of  his  disease,  the

           duration, the family history, his pre-service history,  etc.  so

           that all evidence in support or against the claim is elucidated.

           Presidents of Medical Boards should  make  this  their  personal

           responsibility and  ensure  that  opinions  on  attributability,

           aggravation or otherwise are supported by  cogent  reasons;  the

           approving authority should also be satisfied that this  question

           has been death with in such a way  as  to  leave  no  reasonable

           doubt.

           9.    On the question whether any persisting  deterioration  has

           occurred, it is to be remembered that invalidation from  service

           does  not  necessarily  imply  that  the  member's  health   has

           deteriorated  during  service.  The  disability  may  have  been

           discovered soon after joining and the member discharged  in  his

           own interest in order to prevent deterioration. In  such  cases,

           there may even have been a temporary worsening  during  service,

           but if the treatment given before discharge was  on  grounds  of

           expediency to  prevent  a  recurrence,  no  lasting  damage  was

           inflicted by service and there would be no ground for  admitting

           entitlement. Again a member may have been invalided from service

           because he is found so weak mentally that it  is  impossible  to

           make him an efficient soldier. This  would  not  mean  that  his

           condition has worsened during service, but only that it is worse

           than was realized on enrolment in the army.  To sum up, in  each

           case the question whether any persisting  deterioration  on  the

           available evidence which will vary according to the type of  the

           disability, the consensus of medical opinion   relating  to  the

           particular condition and the clinical history."

27.   Learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India relied on  decisions

of this Court in Om Prakash Singh vs. Union of India  and  others,(2010)  12

SCC 667;(2009) 9 SCC 140; (2010) 11 SCC 220, etc.  and submitted  that  this

Court has already considered the effect of Rule 5, 14a and 14(a)  and  14(b)

and held that the same cannot be read in isolation.  After  perusal  of  the

aforesaid decision we find that Rule 14(a), 14(b) and 14(c) as  noticed  and

quoted therein are similar to Rule 14 as  published  by  the  Government  of

India and not Rule 14  as  quoted  by  the  respondents  in  their  counter-

affidavit. Further, we find that the question as raised in the present  case

that in case no note of disease or  disability  was  made  at  the  time  of

individual's acceptance for military service, the Medical Board is  required

to give reasons in writing for coming to the finding that the disease  could

not have been detected on a medical examination prior to the acceptance  for

service was neither raised nor answered by this Court in those cases.  Those

were the cases which were decided on the facts of the individual case  based

on the opinion of the Medical Board.

28.   A conjoint reading of various provisions, reproduced above,  makes  it

clear that:

      (i)  Disability  pension  to  be  granted  to  an  individual  who  is

      invalidated  from  service  on  account  of  a  disability  which   is

      attributable to  or  aggravated  by  military  service  in  non-battle

      casualty and is assessed at  20%  or  over.  The  question  whether  a

      disability is attributable or aggravated by  military  service  to  be

      determined under "Entitlement Rules for  Casualty  Pensionary  Awards,

      1982" of Appendix-II (Regulation 173).

      (ii)  A member  is  to  be  presumed  in  sound  physical  and  mental

      condition upon entering service if there is no note or record  at  the

      time of entrance. In the event of his  subsequently  being  discharged

      from service on medical grounds any deterioration in his health is  to

      be presumed due to service. [Rule 5 r/w Rule 14(b)].

      (iii) 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. A  claimant  has  a  right  to  derive  benefit  of  any

      reasonable  doubt  and  is  entitled  for  pensionary   benefit   more

      liberally. (Rule 9).

      (iv)  If a disease is accepted  to  have  been  as  having  arisen  in

      service, it must also be established that the conditions  of  military

      service determined or contributed to the onset of the disease and that

      the conditions were due to  the  circumstances  of  duty  in  military

      service. [Rule 14(c)].

      (v)    If no note of any disability or disease was made at the time of

      individual's acceptance for military service, a disease which has  led

      to an individual's  discharge or death will be deemed to  have  arisen

      in service. [14(b)].

      (vi)   If medical opinion holds that the disease could not  have  been

      detected on medical examination prior to the  acceptance  for  service

      and that disease will not be deemed to have arisen during service, the

      Medical Board is required to state the reasons. [14(b)]; and

      (vii) It is mandatory for the Medical Board to follow  the  guidelines

      laid down in Chapter-II of the "Guide to Medical  (Military  Pension),

      2002 - "Entitledment : General Principles",  including  paragraph  7,8

      and 9 as referred to above.

29.   We, accordingly, answer both the questions in  affirmative  in  favour

of the appellant and against the respondents.

30.   In the present case it is undisputed that no note of any  disease  has

been recorded at the time of appellant's acceptance  for  military  service.

The respondents have failed to bring on record any document to suggest  that

the appellant was under treatment for such a disease or by hereditary he  is

suffering from such disease. In absence of any note in  the  service  record

at the time of acceptance of joining of appellant it was  incumbent  on  the

part of the Medical Board to call for records and look into the same  before

coming to an opinion that the  disease  could  not  have  been  detected  on

medical examination prior  to  the  acceptance  for  military  service,  but

nothing is on the record to suggest that any such record was called  for  by

the Medical Board or looked into it and no reasons  have  been  recorded  in

writing to come to  the  conclusion  that  the  disability  is  not  due  to

military service.  In fact, non-application of  mind  of  Medical  Board  is

apparent from Clause (d) of paragraph  2  of  the  opinion  of  the  Medical

Board, which is as follows:

            ____________________________________________________

           " (d) In the case of a disability under C the board should state

                 what exactly  in  their  opinion  is  the  cause  thereof.

           YES

                            Disability is not related to mil service"

         ________________________________________________________

31.   Paragraph 1 of 'Chapter  II'  -  "Entitlement  :  General  Principles"

specifically stipulates that certificate of a constituted medical  authority

vis-`-vis  invalidating  disability,  or   death,   forms   the   basis   of

compensation payable by the Government, the  decision  to  admit  or  refuse

entitlement is not solely a matter which can be determined  finally  by  the

medical authorities alone. It may require also the  consideration  of  other

circumstances  e.g.  service  conditions,  pre-and   post-service   history,

verification of wound or injury,  corroboration  of  statements,  collecting

and weighing the value of  evidence,  and  in  some  instances,  matters  of

military law and dispute.  For  the  said  reasons  the  Medical  Board  was

required to examine the cases in the light of  etiology  of  the  particular

disease and after considering all the relevant particulars  of  a  case,  it

was required to record its conclusion with  reasons  in  support,  in  clear

terms and language which the Pension Sanctioning Authority would be able  to

appreciate.

32.    In  spite  of  the  aforesaid  provisions,  the  Pension  Sanctioning

Authority failed to notice that the Medical Board had not given  any  reason

in support of its opinion, particularly  when  there  is  no  note  of  such

disease or disability available in the service record of  the  appellant  at

the time of acceptance for  military  service.  Without  going  through  the

aforesaid facts the Pension Sanctioning Authority  mechanically  passed  the

impugned order of rejection based on the report of  the  Medical  Board.  As

per Rules 5 and 9 of 'Entitlement  Rules  for  Casualty  Pensionary  Awards,

1982', the appellant is entitled for presumption and benefit of  presumption

in his favour.  In absence of any  evidence  on  record  to  show  that  the

appellant was suffering from "Genrealised seizure (Epilepsy)"  at  the  time

of acceptance of his service, it will be presumed that the appellant was  in

sound physical and mental condition at the time of entering the service  and

deterioration in his health has taken place due to service.

33.   As per Rule 423(a) of General Rules for the purpose of  determining  a

question whether the cause of a disability or death resulting  from  disease

is or is not attributable to service, it is  immaterial  whether  the  cause

giving rise to the disability or death occurred in an area declared to be  a

field  service/active  service  area  or  under  normal  peace   conditions.

"Classification   of  diseases"  have  been  prescribed  at  Chapter  IV  of

Annexure I; under paragraph 4  post  traumatic  epilepsy  and  other  mental

changes resulting from head injuries have been shown as one of the  diseases

affected by training,  marching,  prolonged  standing  etc.  Therefore,  the

presumption would be that the disability of  the  appellant  bore  a  casual

connection with the service conditions.

34.   In view of the finding as recorded above, we have  no  option  but  to

set aside the impugned order passed by the Division Bench dated  31st  July,

2009 in LPA No.26 of 2004 and uphold the  decision  of  the  learned  Single

Judge dated 20th May, 2004. The impugned order is set aside and  accordingly

the appeal is allowed. The respondents are directed  to  pay  the  appellant

the benefit in terms of the order passed by  the  learned  Single  Judge  in

accordance with law within three months if not yet paid, else they shall  be

liable to pay interest as per order passed by the learned Single  Judge.  No

costs.

    ..................................................................J.

                               (A.K. PATNAIK)

      ...............................................................J.

                              (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)

NEW DELHI,

JULY 2, 2013.

============================================================================================

(SOURCE- VIA E-MAIL)