Page 1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF  INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL     APPEAL     NO.     3686     OF     2012   (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6629 of 2011)

Union of India & Anr.            ....Appellants  

Versus Talwinder Singh                                ....Respondent

O     R     D     E     R   

1. Leave granted.       

The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and  

order dated 11.11.2009 passed by the High Court of Punjab &  

Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No.599 of 2009 by which the High  

Court has reversed the judgment and order of the Trial Court as  

well as the First Appellate Court and granted the relief of disability  

pension to the respondent.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that the  

respondent was enrolled in the Infantry (Sikh Regiment) on  

23.5.1987.  He proceeded on annual leave on 31.3.1990 for a period  

of two months to his home town.  During his leave period, the  

respondent suffered injuries being hit by a small wooden piece  

“Gulli”  in the play of children and thus, his left eye was seriously  

damaged.  He was admitted to Command Hospital, Chandimandir

Page 2

and remained there from 1.4.1990 to 25.4.1990.  The respondent was  

operated upon twice and, subsequently, was discharged giving him  

sick leave from 26.4.1990 to 6.6.1990 and was placed in low  

medical category ‘BEE’ (permanent).   

3.      The investigation/enquiry was conducted by Army Authorities  

and the court of inquiry vide order dated 13.7.1990 came to the  

conclusion that injuries sustained by the respondent were not  

attributable to military service.  The respondent was kept in sheltered  

appointment upto 31.5.2003 for giving him an opportunity to  

complete his terms of engagement.  The respondent was examined  

by the Release Medical Board (RMB) on 14.2.2003 for assessment  

of degree and attributability/aggravation factors of the disability  

‘Perforating Injury Left Eye’  and it came to the conclusion that  

disability was 30% for life,  however, the Board further declared that  

the said disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by  

military service.  In view thereof, the claim of the respondent for  

disability pension was rejected by the competent authority vide order  

dated 7.8.2003.   

4.       The respondent filed Suit No.312 of 2004 before Civil Judge  

(Senior Division) Sangrur, Punjab, seeking the relief of disability  

pension which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated  

2

Page 3

25.9.2006.  Aggrieved, respondent preferred Civil Appeal No.150 of  

2006 which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge,  

Sangrur vide judgment and decree dated 2.9.2008.  Respondent, not  

being satisfied, preferred RSA No.599 of 2009 before the High  

Court of Punjab & Haryana challenging the aforesaid judgments and  

decree.  Learned Single Judge reversed the concurrent finding of  

facts by two courts below and allowed the appeal decreeing the suit  

issuing direction to the appellants/ defendants to release payment of  

disability pension alongwith 8% interest per annum from 31.5.2003,  

within a period of 3 months.   

            Hence, this appeal.

5.        Shri H.P. Raval, learned ASG appearing on behalf of Union  

of India, has submitted that the High Court committed an error  

allowing the appeal and reversing the judgments and decree of the  

courts below as the case of the respondent could not fall within the  

provisions of paragraph 179 of the Pension Regulations of the Army,  

1961, Part-I, (herein after called the `Regulations’)  as well as the  

findings and opinion of the Medical Board, a finding that the injury  

suffered by the respondent could neither be attributable to, nor could  

be aggravated by the military service.  Therefore, the appeal  

3

Page 4

deserves to be allowed.  The judgment and decree of the High Court  

is liable to be set aside.

6. On the contrary, Shri Vivek Gupta, learned counsel  

appearing for the respondent, has contended that the High Court has  

decided the case in correct perspective and correctly interpreted the  

statutory provisions and therefore, no interference is required.  The  

appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

7. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned  

counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The sole question involved in this appeal is that if a person  

enrolled in Army suffers from injury at his home when on leave,  

whether such injury can be held to be attributable to or aggravated  

by the military service.   

             The issue involved herein is no more res integra.  It is not in  

dispute that in case the injury suffered by military personnel is  

attributable to or aggravated by military service after discharge, he  

becomes entitled for disability pension.  It is also a settled legal  

proposition that opinion of the Medical Board should be given  

primacy in deciding cases of disability pension and the court should  

not grant such pension brushing aside the opinion of the Medical  

Board.

4

Page 5

(See: Union of India & Anr. v. Baljit Singh, (1996) 11 SCC 315;  

Union of India & Ors. v. Dhir Singh China, Colonel (Retd.),  

(2003) 2 SCC 382; Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) &  

Ors. v. S. Balachandran Nair, AIR 2005 SC 4391; Union of India  

& Ors. v. Keshar Singh, (2007) 12 SCC 675; and Union of India  

& Ors. v. Surinder Singh Rathore, (2008) 5 SCC 747).  

8. In The Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall v.  

Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 1285,  

this Court while placing reliance upon a large number of earlier  

judgments including Constitution Bench judgment in The  

University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao & Anr., AIR 1965 SC  

491, held that ordinarily, the court should not interfere with the order  

based on opinion of experts on the subject.  It would be safe for the  

courts to leave the decision to experts who are more familiar with the  

problems they face than the courts generally can be.  

9.      This Court recently decided an identical case in Union of  

India & Ors. v. Jujhar Singh, AIR 2011 SC 2598, and after  

reconsidering a large number of earlier judgments including  

Secretary, Ministry of Defence & Ors. v. A.V. Damodaran (dead)  

through L.Rs. & Ors., (2009) 9 SCC 140; Baljit Singh’s (supra);  

Regional Director, ESI Corporation & Anr. v. Francis De Costa  

5

Page 6

& Anr., AIR 1997 SC 432, came to the conclusion that in view of  

Regulation 179, a discharged person can be granted disability  

pension only if the disability is attributable to or aggravated by  

military service and such a finding has been recorded by Service  

Medical Authorities.  In case the Medical Authorities records the  

specific finding to the effect that disability was neither attributable to  

nor aggravated by the military service, the court should not ignore  

such a finding for the reason that Medical Board is specialised  

authority composed of expert medical doctors and it is a final  

authority to give opinion regarding attributability and aggravation of  

the disability due to the military service and the conditions of service  

resulting in the disablement of the individual.  A person claiming  

disability pension must be able to show a reasonable nexus between  

the act, omission or commission resulting in an injury to the person  

and the normal expected standard of duties and way of life expected  

from such person.  As the military personnel sustained disability  

when he was on an annual leave that too at his home town in a road  

accident, it could not be held that the injuries could be attributable to  

or aggravated by military service. Such a person would not be  

entitled to disability pension.

6

Page 7

10.       This view stands fully fortified by the earlier judgment of this  

Court in Secretary, Ministry of Defence & Ors. v. Ajit Singh,  

(2009) 7 SCC  328.  

11.    The instant case is squarely covered by the ratio of the  

aforesaid judgment in Jujhar Singh (supra).

We are of the view that the opinion of the Medical Board  

which is an expert body must be given due weight, value and  

credence.  Person claiming disability pension must establish that the  

injury suffered by him bears a causal connection with military  

service.  In the instant case, as the injury suffered by the respondent  

could not be attributable to or aggravated by the military service he  

is not entitled for disability pension.   

12. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.  The judgment  

and order of the High Court dated 11.11.2009 passed in R.S.A. No.  

499 of 2009 is set aside and the judgment and order of the Trial  

Court and that of First Appellate Court are restored. No order as to  

costs.   

                                                 …………………….…………..J.          (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

      . ………………………………..J. (JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)

7

Page 8

New Delhi, April 20, 2012.

8