Page 1 1

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   31

st

  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 20

th

  May, 2004 passed by the learned Single  

Judge in Civil Writ Petition No.660 of 2004.

3.The questions involved in this case are:

Page 2 2

(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   15

th

  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 12

th

  December, 1995 

on the ground that the disability suffered by the appellant  

was neither attributable to nor aggravated by the military  

service. 

Page 3 3

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 20

th

  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  

Page 4 4

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 Re­Survey 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 Re­survey 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   Appendix­IIas   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   Appendix­II   as   referred   to   in  

Regulation   48,   173   and   185   of   the   Pension 

Regulations for the Army, 1961(Part­I).

Page 5 5

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.”

Page 6 6

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  

Page 7 7

nature and the Re­survey Medical Board had  

specifically opined, as noticed above,  that  

the disability was neither attributable nor  

aggravated   by   the   military   service.   The  

opinion of the Re­survey 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 Appendix­IIas referred to  

in Regulation 48, 173 and 185 of the Pension  

Regulation for the Army, 1961 (Part­I). He  

has omitted to see clauses 7(c) of Appendix­

IIof the Pension Regulations for the Army,  

1961 (Pat­I).  

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  

Page 8 8

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. 

Page 9 9

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 

Page 10 10

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   31

st

  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 Appendix­II 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:

Page 11 11

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 non­suitability  

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  

Page 12 12

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   counter­affidavit   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(Pen­C) dated 20

th

 June, 1996 needs to be  

taken into consideration along with the other provisions of  

Entitlement Rules, 1982. 

Page 13 13

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

appellant, the "Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary  

Awards,   1982"   contained   in   Appendix­II   of   the   Pension  

Regulations for the Army, 1961 is applicable and not the  

Rules referred to and quoted in the counter­affidavit 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(Part­I)' 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  

Appendix­II­   '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(Part­I)   published   by   the   Ministry   of 

Defence, Government of India, New Delhi. The respondents in  

Page 14 14

their counter­affidavit has not made clear as to when the  

Government   of   India,   Ministry   of   Defence   letter  

No.1(1)/81/D(Pen­C) dated 20

th

  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   counter­affidavit   they  

have   not   mentioned   that   the   rules   extracted   in   their  

counter­affidavit is true copy of its original. 

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

Regulations   for   the   Army,   1961"   and   Appendix­II­  

'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 

Page 15 15

aggravated by military service in non­battle  

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  

Appendix­II. 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

Page 16 16

(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.”

Page 17 17

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.

Page 18 18

(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  counter­affidavit,  it  

makes   no   much   difference   for   determination   of   issue.  

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

Page 19 19

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

Defence   letter   No.1(1)/81/D(Pen­C)   dated   20

th

  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. 

Page 20 20

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 

Page 21 21

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  

employer­respondents   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 FieldService/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 

Page 22 22

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  

Page 23 23

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. 

Page 24 24

(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 vis­a­vis the  

invaliding   disability,   or   death,   forms   the 

basis   of   compensation   payable   by   the  

Page 25 25

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,   pre­and   post­service  

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.   pre­enrolment   history   of   an   injury,   or  

disease   like   epilepsy,   mental   disorder   etc.   Further,  

Page 26 26

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.,   pre­enrolment   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,

Page 27 27

(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   pre­service   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.

Page 28 28

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   respondent­Union   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  

Page 29 29

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   counter­affidavit.   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 non­battle casualty and is assessed  

Page 30 30

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   Appendix­II   (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 non­entitlement 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  

Page 31 31

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 Chapter­II 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.

Page 32 32

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:

____________________________________________________

Page 33 33

“  (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

à­vis   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,   pre­and   post­service   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,  

Page 34 34

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. 

Page 35 35

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 31

st

  July, 2009 in LPA No.26 of 2004  

and uphold the decision of the learned Single Judge dated  

20

th

  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  

Page 36 36

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.