Page 1

       REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2904 OF 2011

Union of India & Anr. …Appellants

Versus

Rajbir Singh …Respondent

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2905 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO.3409 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO.5144 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO.2279 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1498 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO.5090 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO.5414 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO.5163 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO.5840 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO.7368 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO.7479 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO.7629 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO.5469 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO.10747 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO.11398 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO.183 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO.167 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10105 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5819 OF 2012

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5260 OF 2012 CIVILL APPEAL D.16394 OF 2013

1

Page 2

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1856 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.15768 of 2011)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1854 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.14478 of 2011)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1855 OF 2015 Arising out of SLP (C) No.26401 of 2010

CIVILL APPEAL NO.1858 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 32190 of 2010)

CIVILL APPEAL NO.1859 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.27220 of 2012)

J U D G M E N T

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1.    Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of separate but similar orders  

passed  by  the  Armed  Forces  Tribunal  holding  the  

respondents  entitled  to  claim disability  pension  under  the  

relevant Pension Regulations of the Army.  The Tribunal has  

taken  the  view  that  the  disability  of  each  one  of  the  

respondents was attributable to or aggravated by military  

service and the same having been assessed at more than  

20% entitled them to disability pension. The appellant-Union  

of India has assailed that finding and direction for payment  

2

Page 3

of pension primarily on the ground that the Medical Boards  

concerned having clearly opined that the disability had not  

arisen out of or aggravated by military service, the Tribunal  

was not justified in taking a contrary view.

3. Relying upon the decisions of this Court in  Union of  

India and Ors.  v.  Keshar Singh (2007) 12 SCC 675;   

Om Prakash Singh  v.  Union of India and Ors. (2010)  

12 SCC 667;  Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Ors.   

v.  A.V.  Damodaran  (Dead)  through  LRs.  and  Ors.   

(2009) 9 SCC 140; and Union of India and Ors. v. Ram  

Prakash   (2010) 11 SCC 220, it  was contended by Mr.  

Balasubramanian,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

appellant in these appeals, that the opinion of the Release  

Medical Board and in some cases Re-survey Medical Board  

and  Appellate  Medical  Authority  must  be  respected,  

especially when the question whether the disability suffered  

by  the  respondents  was  attributable  to  or  aggravated  by  

military service was a technical question falling entirely in  

the realm of medical science in which the opinion expressed  

by  medical  experts  could  not  be  lightly  brushed  aside.  

3

Page 4

Inasmuch as the Tribunal had failed to show any deference  

to the opinion of the experts who were better qualified to  

determine  the  question  of  attributability  of  a  

disease/disability  to  a  military  service,  the  Tribunal  had  

fallen in error argued the learned counsel.

4. On behalf of the respondents it was, on the other hand,  

submitted that the decisions relied upon by learned counsel  

for the appellant were of no assistance in view of the later  

pronouncement of this Court in Dharamvir Singh v. Union  

of India and Ors. (2013) 7 SCC 316 where a two-Judge  

Bench of this Court had, after a comprehensive review of the  

case  law  and  the  relevant  rules  and  regulations,  

distinguished the  said  decisions  and stated  the  true  legal  

position. It was contended that the earlier decisions in the  

cases  relied  upon  by  the  appellants  were  decided  in  the  

peculiar facts of those cases and did not constitute a binding  

precedent especially when the said decisions had not dealt  

with several aspects to which the decision of this Court in  

Dharamvir  Singh’s case  (supra)  had  adverted.  Applying  

the  principles  enunciated  in  Dharamvir  Singh’s case  

4

Page 5

(supra) these appeals, according to the learned counsel for  

the respondents, deserve to be dismissed and indeed ought  

to meet that fate.  

5. The  material  facts  giving  rise  to  the  controversy  in  

these appeals are not in dispute.  It is not in dispute that the  

respondents  in  all  these  appeals  were  invalided  out  of  

service on account of medical disability shown against each  

in the following chart:

Case No. Name of the  Respondent

Nature of  Disease/Disability

Percentage of  Disability  

determined

C.A. No. 2904/2011 Ex. Hav. Rajbir Singh Generalized Seizors 20% for 2  years.

C.A. No. 5163/2011 Ex. Recruit Amit Kumar Manic Episode (F-30). 40%  (Permanent)

C.A. No. 5840/2011 Hony. Flt. Lt. P.S.  Rohilla

Primary Hypertension. 30%

C.A. No. 7368/2011 Ex. Power Satyaveer  Singh

Diabetes Mellitus (IDDM)  ICD E 10.9.

40%  (Permanent).

C.A. No. 7479/2011 Ex. Gnr. Jagjeet Singh 1. Non-Insulin Dependent  Diabetes Melllitus  

(NIDDM). 2. Fracture Lateral  Condyl of Tibia with  

fracture neck of Fibula  left.

20% each and  composite  

disability 40%  (Permanent).

C.A. No. 7629/2011 Ex. Rect. Charanjit Ram Mal-descended Testis (R)  with Inguinal hernia.

60%  (Permanent).

C.A. No. 5469/2011 Jugti Ram (through LR) Schizophrenic Reaction  (300)

80%

C.A. D. No.  16394/2013

HavaldarSurjit Singh Neurotic Depression V- 67.

40% for 2  years.

C.A. No. 2905/2011 Ex. Naik Ram Phai Otosolerosis (Rt.) Ear 20%

5

Page 6

OPTD

C.A. No. 10747/2011 Sadhu Singh Schizophrenia 20% for 2  years.

C.A. No. 11398/2011 Rampal Singh Neurosis (300. 20% for 2  years.

C.A. No. 183/2012 Raj Singh Neurosis 30%.

C.A. No. 167/2012 Ranjit Singh Other Non-Organic  Psychosis (298, V-67)

20% for 2  years.

C.A. No. 5819/2012 Ex. Sub. Ratan Singh Primary Hypertension 30%  (Permanent)

C.A. No. 5260/2012 Ex. Sep. Tarlochan  Singh

Epilepsy (345) Less than 20%

C.A. No. 10105/2011 Harbans Singh 1.Epilepsy (345)

2. High Hyper-metropia  Rt. Eye with partial  

Amblyopia.

20% each and  composite  

disability 40%  for 2 years.

C.A.NO.....OF 2015  (@ SLP(C)No.  27220/2012)

Balwan Singh Personality Disorder 60%

C.A.NO.....OF 2015  (@ SLP (C) No.  32190/2010)

Sharanjit Singh Generalized Tonic Clonic  Seizure, 345 V-64.

Less than 20%

C.A. No. 5090/2011 Abdulla Othyanagath Schizophrenia 30%

C.A.NO........OF 2015  (@ SLP (C) No.  26401/2010)

Sqn. Ldr. Manoj Rana 1. Non-Organic Psychosis

2. Stato-Hypatitis

40%

C.A. No. 2279/2011 Labh Singh Schizophrenia 30% for 2  years.

C.A. No. 5144/2011 Makhan Singh Neurosis (300-Deep) 20%

C.A. No. 14478/2011 Ajit Singh Idiopathic Epilepsy  (Grandmal)

20%

C.A.NO.......OF 2015  (@ SLP (C) No.  15768/2011)

ManoharLal Renal Calculus (Right) 20%

C.A. No. 3409/2011 Major Man Mohan  Krishan

IHD (Angina Pectoris) Less than 20%

C.A. No. 1498/2011* Ex. Sgt. Suresh Kumar  Sharma

1.Generalized Seizors 2. Inter-vertebral Disc  

Prolapse 3.PIVD C-7-D, (Multi-Disc  

Prolapse)

70%  (permanent)

C.A. No. 5414/2011 Rakesh Kumar Singla Bipolar Mood Disorder 20% for 5  years.

6

Page 7

6. It is also not in dispute that the extent of disability in  

each one of the cases was assessed to be above 20% which  

is  the  bare  minimum in  terms  of  Regulation  173  of  the  

Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961.  The only question  

that arises in the above backdrop is whether the disability  

which each one of the respondents suffered was attributable  

to or aggravated by military service. The Medical Board has  

rejected the claim for disability pension only on the ground  

that the disability was not attributable to or aggravated by  

military  service.  Whether  or  not  that  opinion  is  in  itself  

sufficient to deny to the respondents the disability pension  

claimed  by  them  is  the  only  question  falling  for  our  

determination. Several decisions of this Court have in the  

past  examined  similar  questions  in  almost  similar  fact  

situations.  But before we refer to those pronouncements we  

may briefly refer to the Pension Regulations that govern the  

field.  

7. The claims of the respondents for payment of pension,  

it is a common ground, are regulated by Pension Regulations  

for the Army, 1961.  Regulation 173 of the said Regulations  

7

Page 8

provides for grant of disability pension to persons who are  

invalided out of 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  above.   The  

regulation reads:

"173. Primary  conditions  for  the  grant  of   disability pension:    Unless otherwise specifically   provided a disability pension may be granted to an   individual who is invalided from service on account   of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated   by military service and is assessed at 20 percent or   over.  The  question  whether  a  disability  is   attributable to or aggravated by military service shall   be determined under the rule in Appendix II.”

8. The above makes it manifest that only two conditions  

have been specified for the grant of disability pension viz.  

(i) the disability  is  above 20%; and  (ii)  the disability  is  

attributable to or aggravated by military service. Whether or  

not the disability is attributable to or aggravated by military  

service, is in turn, to be determined under Entitlement Rules  

for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 forming Appendix-II  

to  the  Pension  Regulations.  Significantly,  Rule  5  of  the  

Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 also  

lays down the approach to be adopted while determining the  

8

Page 9

entitlement to disability pension under the said Rules.  Rule  

5 reads as under:

“5. 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) 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.

(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.”

9. Equally  important  is  Rule  9  of  the Entitlement  Rules  

(supra)  which  places  the  onus  of  proof  upon  the  

establishment.  Rule 9 reads:

“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.”

10. As regards diseases Rule 14 of the Entitlement Rules  

stipulates that in the case of a disease which has led to an  

individual’s discharge or death, the disease shall be deemed  

to have arisen in service, if no note of it was made at the  

time of individual’s acceptance for military service, subject  

9

Page 10

to the condition that 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   

same will not be deemed to have so arisen”. Rule 14 may  

also be extracted for facility of reference.

“14. Diseases.- 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.”

  (emphasis supplied)

10

Page 11

11. From a conjoint and harmonious reading of Rules 5, 9  

and 14 of Entitlement Rules (supra) the following guiding  

principles emerge:

i) a  member  is  presumed  to  have  been  in  sound  

physical  and  mental  condition  upon  entering  

service except as to physical disabilities noted or  

recorded at the time of entrance;

ii) in the event of his being discharged from service  

on medical  grounds at any subsequent stage  it  

must be presumed that any such deterioration in  

his health which has taken place is due to such  

military service;

iii) the  disease  which  has  led  to  an  individual’s  

discharge or death will   ordinarily be deemed to  

have arisen in service, if no note of it was made at  

the time of the individual’s acceptance for military  

service; and

iv) if medical opinion holds that the disease, because  

of which the individual was discharged, could not  

have been detected on medical examination prior  

11

Page 12

to  acceptance  of  service,  reasons  for  the  same  

shall be stated.

12. Reference  may  also  be  made  at  this  stage  to  the  

guidelines  set  out  in  Chapter-II  of  the  Guide  to  Medical  

Officers  (Military  Pensions),  2002  which  set  out  the  

“Entitlement:  General  Principles”,  and the approach to be  

adopted  in  such  cases.  Paras  7,  8  and  9  of  the  said  

guidelines reads as under:

“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 categorisation   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   

12

Page 13

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,   Sacralisation,

(b)  Certain  familial  and  hereditary  diseases  e.g.   Haemophilia,  Congential  Syphilis,   Haemoglobinopathy.

(c) Certain diseases of the heart and blood vessels   e.g. Coronary 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 be 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   

13

Page 14

otherwise  are  supported  by  cogent  reasons;  the   approving authority should also be satisfied that this   question has been dealt 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   realised 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.”

13. In  Dharamvir  Singh’s  case  (supra)  this  Court  took  

note  of  the  provisions  of  the  Pensions  Regulations,  

Entitlement  Rules  and  the  General  Rules  of  Guidance  to  

Medical Officers to sum up the legal position emerging from  

the same in the following words:

“29.1. Disability  pension  to  be  granted  to  an  individual who is invalided from service on account   of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated   by  military  service  in  non-battle  casualty  and  is   

14

Page 15

assessed at 20% or over.  The question whether a   disability is attributable to or aggravated by military   service  to  be  determined  under  the  Entitlement   Rules  for  Casualty  Pensionary  Awards,  1982  of   Appendix II (Regulation 173).

29.2. 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 read   with Rule 14(b)].

29.3. The  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).

29.4. 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)].

29.5. 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 [Rule 14(b)].

29.6. 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 [Rule  14(b)]; and

29.7. It is mandatory for the Medical Board to follow   the guidelines laid down in Chapter II of the Guide to   Medical  Officers  (Military  Pensions),  2002  —  “Entitlement: General Principles”, including Paras 7,   8 and 9 as referred to above (para 27).”

15

Page 16

14. Applying the above principles this Court in Dharamvir  

Singh’s case (supra) found that no note of any disease had  

been recorded at  the time of his  acceptance into military  

service. This Court also held that Union of India had failed to  

bring on record any document to suggest  that  Dharamvir  

was  under  treatment  for  the  disease  at  the  time  of  his  

recruitment  or  that  the disease was hereditary  in  nature.  

This Court, on that basis, declared Dharamvir to be entitled  

to claim disability pension in the absence of any note in his  

service  record at  the time of  his  acceptance  into military  

service. This Court observed:    

“33. 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   the  Entitlement  Rules  for  Casualty  Pensionary  Awards,  1982,  the  appellant  is  entitled  for   presumption  and  benefit  of  presumption  in  his   favour. In the absence of any evidence on record to   show  that  the  appellant  was  suffering  from  “generalised  seizure  (epilepsy)”  at  the  time  of   acceptance of his service, it will  be presumed that   the  appellant  was  in  sound  physical  and  mental   

16

Page 17

condition  at  the  time  of  entering  the  service  and  deterioration  in  his  health  has  taken place  due to   service.”

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

case  (supra)  is,  in  our  opinion,  in  tune  with  the  Pension  

Regulations, the Entitlement Rules and the Guidelines issued  

to the Medical Officers. The essence of the rules, as seen  

earlier, is that a member of the armed forces is presumed to  

be in sound physical and mental condition at the time of his  

entry  into  service  if  there  is  no  note  or  record  to  the  

contrary made at the time of such entry. More importantly,  

in  the event of  his  subsequent discharge from service on  

medical ground, any deterioration in his health is presumed  

to be due to military service. This necessarily implies that no  

sooner  a  member  of  the  force  is  discharged  on  medical  

ground his entitlement to claim disability pension will arise  

unless of course the employer is in a position to rebut the  

presumption  that  the  disability  which  he  suffered  was  

neither  attributable  to nor aggravated by military service.  

From Rule 14(b) of the Entitlement Rules it is further clear  

that  if  the medical  opinion were to hold  that  the disease  

17

Page 18

suffered by the member of the armed forces could not have  

been detected prior to acceptance for service, the Medical  

Board must state the reasons for saying so.  Last but not the  

least is the fact that the provision for payment of disability  

pension  is  a  beneficial  provision  which  ought  to  be  

interpreted liberally so as to benefit those who have been  

sent  home  with  a  disability  at  times  even  before  they  

completed  their  tenure  in  the  armed  forces.   There  may  

indeed be cases, where the disease was wholly unrelated to  

military service, but, in order that denial of disability pension  

can  be  justified  on  that  ground,  it  must  be  affirmatively  

proved that the disease had nothing to do with such service.  

The burden to establish such a disconnect would lie heavily  

upon  the  employer  for  otherwise  the  rules  raise  a  

presumption  that  the  deterioration  in  the  health  of  the  

member of the service is on account of military service or  

aggravated by it.  A soldier cannot be asked to prove that  

the disease was contracted by him on account of military  

service or was aggravated by the same. The very fact that  

he was upon proper  physical  and other  tests  found fit  to  

serve in the army should rise as indeed the rules do provide  

18

Page 19

for a presumption that he was disease-free at the time of his  

entry  into  service.  That  presumption  continues  till  it  is  

proved  by  the  employer  that  the  disease  was  neither  

attributable to nor aggravated by military service. For the  

employer to say so, the least that is required is a statement  

of  reasons supporting that  view.  That we feel  is  the true  

essence of the rules which ought to be kept in view all the  

time while dealing with cases of disability pension.   

16. Applying the above parameters to the cases at hand,  

we are of the view that each one of the respondents having  

been  discharged  from  service  on  account  of  medical  

disease/disability, the disability must be presumed to have  

been  arisen  in  the  course  of  service  which  must,  in  the  

absence of any reason recorded by the Medical Board, be  

presumed  to  have  been  attributable  to  or  aggravated  by  

military service. There is admittedly neither any note in the  

service records of the respondents at the time of their entry  

into  service  nor  have  any  reasons  been  recorded  by  the  

Medical Board to suggest that the disease which the member  

concerned was found to be suffering from could not have  

19

Page 20

been  detected  at  the  time  of  his  entry  into  service.  The  

initial presumption that the respondents were all physically  

fit  and free  from any  disease  and in  sound physical  and  

mental condition at the time of their entry into service thus  

remains unrebutted.  Since the disability has in each case  

been assessed at more than 20%, their claim to disability  

pension could not have been repudiated by the appellants.   

17. In  the  result  these  appeals  fail  and  are  hereby  

dismissed without any order as to costs.            

………………………………….…..…J.        (T.S. THAKUR)

     …………………………..…………….J. New Delhi                     (R. BANUMATHI) February 13, 2015

20