Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court was considering an appeal by special leave against a judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh which had directed the Union of India to pay disability pension to a discharged Army soldier. The soldier, the respondent, was enrolled in the Army as an Apprentice on March 30, 1975, and was appointed on regular basis with effect from March 27, 1977, in the EME 177 Battalion. While in service, he sustained a moderately severe injury described as Abductor Strain [R] Thigh and Internal Derangement [R] Knee on April 17, 1979. He was admitted to Military Hospital, Babina, and was downgraded to medical category CEE (temporary) with effect from August 11, 1979, by a duly constituted Medical Board. He was discharged from the hospital on August 12, 1979. On May 10, 1981, the Medical Board found him physically incapacitated and reported a diagnosis of 'Neurosis Superimposed on an immature histrionic personality'. He was recommended for invalidation from service and was discharged by consent as an invalidated man on May 31, 1981. In 1995, he filed Writ Petition No. 738 of 1995 before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla seeking disability pension. The High Court by its judgment dated October 31, 1995, directed the appellants to pay him disability pension. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave, contending that under Rule 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, disability pension is payable only if the disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service and is assessed at 20% or over. The appellant argued that the Medical Board's report under Column 2(iii) stated that the injury was not connected with service, and therefore the respondent could not be declared to have suffered injury due to service. The respondent argued that he had joined service and sustained injury while in service, and therefore was entitled to disability pension relying on paragraph 2(ii) of the Entitlement Rules (Appendix II). That rule indicates that disablement is due to a wound, injury or disease which either is attributable to military service or existed before or arose during military service and has been and remains aggravated thereby. The Supreme Court accepted the appellant's contention. It observed that various criteria have been prescribed in the guidelines under the Rules as to when disease or injury is attributable to military service. Under Rule 173, disability pension would be computed only when disability has occurred due to a wound, injury or disease which is attributable to military service or existed before or arose during military service and has been and remains aggravated during military service. Clauses (a) to (d) of paragraph 7 contemplate that in respect of a disease, the Rules enumerated thereunder require to be observed. Clause (c) provides that if a disease is accepted as having arisen in service, it must also be established or contributed to the onset of the disease and that the conditions were due to the circumstances of duty in military service. Unless these conditions are satisfied, it cannot be said that the sustenance of injury per se is on account of military service. In view of the Medical Board report, the injury was not due to military service. The Supreme Court held that in each case when disability pension is sought and a claim made, it must be affirmatively established as a fact whether the injury sustained was attributable to military service or was aggravated which contributed to invalidation for military service. Accordingly, the Supreme Court found that the High Court was not totally correct in reaching that conclusion. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court did not think it an appropriate case for interference and dismissed the appeal with no costs. Thus, the direction of the High Court to pay disability pension remained undisturbed.
Headnote
A) Armed Forces Pension Law - Disability Pension - Rule 173 Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 - Entitlement requires injury or disease attributable to or aggravated by military service and assessed at 20% or over; mere occurrence of injury during service is not sufficient - Respondent was invalided out after Medical Board reported injury not connected with service; High Court directed disability pension; Supreme Court held that the claimant must affirmatively establish causal connection between injury/disease and military service, and the Medical Board report negated attributability - Held that disability pension is not automatic upon injury during service (Paras 1-2). B) Supreme Court Practice - Special Leave Petitions - Discretionary Non-Interference - Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, Rule 173 - Despite finding High Court reasoning not totally correct, Supreme Court dismissed appeal having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, exercising discretionary power to decline interference - Held that no interference warranted on special facts (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether disability pension under Rule 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 is payable when the Medical Board reported that the injury was not connected with military service, although the injury occurred during service; whether mere sustaining of injury during military service establishes attributability to military service.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Supreme Court held that High Court was not totally correct in its reasoning but declined to interfere on facts and circumstances of the case. No costs.
Law Points
- Rule 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army
- 1961 requires disability to be attributable to or aggravated by military service and assessed at 20% or over
- mere injury during service is not sufficient
- claimant must affirmatively establish causal connection between injury or disease and military service
- Medical Board report that injury not connected with service negates attributability
- Supreme Court may decline interference on special facts even if lower court reasoning flawed
