Q: Discuss the citation of Sukhvinder Singh v. Union Of India And Others, 2014 ?

Ans: 

Sukhvinder Singh v. Union Of India And Others

Supreme Court Of India
Jun 25, 2014

According to the Appellant, on 5.8.2001 he was slapped on the ear by the Instructor in the Training Centre as a consequence of which he suffered shooting pain in that ear and was admitted to the Military Hospital, Kamptee. We have perused the Report of the Medical Officer (ENT), dated 5.8.2001 which has been filed with the Appeal as Annexure P-1. It contains a noting to the effect that the Appellant had stated that he was hit on the ear by a fellow patient in the ward. The diagnosis was that there was "Substandard hearing RT ear (old) c Tr perforation LT TM." It seems to us that the discrepancy in the noting as to the manner in which the injury was sustained was because it was inconceivable for a young recruit to lodge a complaint against his Instructor. Such a complaint would have had serious implications and an Inquiry under Regulation 520 of the Regulations of the Army, 1987 would have had to be carried out.

On 16.2.2002, the Appellant was presented before the Medical Board which recommended that the Appellant be invalided out of service with disability of 6 per cent to 10 per cent on account of hearing impairment. It will bear repetition that the exercise as to whether the Appellant could be retained in service in some other category was not even thought of or considered or undertaken, in the face of the Pension Regulation for the Army, 1961, Part I, Appendix II (4) and (9) which postulates that "the claimant shall not be called upon to prove the conditions of entitlement. He/she shall receive the benefit of any reasonable doubt. This benefit shall be given more liberally to the claimants in field/afloat service cases." In its letter dated 18th October, 2004 the Respondents have recorded that the Invaliding Medical Board (IMB) had considered the Appellant's Invalided Disability (ID) and had concluded it to be:


(i) as neither attributable nor aggravated by Military Service; and (ii) as assessed the degree of disablement of the said disease at 6 to 10 per cent, permanently for life.


Inexplicably, but very significantly, it has also been recorded that the above disability had existed before entering service, but had remained undetected by the recruiting Medical Officer. It has further been conveyed to the Appellant by the said letter that as per Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army 1961, Part-1, disability pension is granted to an individual on his invalidment from service only when his disability is viewed as attributable or aggravated by Military Service and is assessed at 20 per cent or above by the competent Medical Authority, and since neither of these two factors was present, the Appellant was not entitled to grant of disability pension in terms of the said Regulation


Held While Allowing the appeal:


We are of the persuasion, therefore, that firstly, any disability not recorded at the time of recruitment must be presumed to have been caused subsequently and unless proved to the contrary to be a consequence of military service. The benefit of doubt is rightly extended in favour of the member of the Armed Forces; any other conclusion would be tantamount to granting a premium to the Recruitment Medical Board for their own negligence. Secondly, the morale of the Armed Forces requires absolute and undiluted protection and if an injury leads to loss of service without any recompense, this morale would be severely undermined. Thirdly, there appears to be no provisions authorising the discharge or invaliding out of service where the disability is below twenty per cent and seems to us to be logically so. Fourthly, wherever a member of the Armed Forces is invalided out of service, it perforce has to be assumed that his disability was found to be above twenty per cent. Fifthly, as per the extant Rules/Regulations, a disability leading to invaliding out of service would attract the grant of fifty per cent disability pension.

In view of analysis of honourable Supreme Court,  the Appellant would be entitled to the Disability Pension. The Appeal is, accordingly, accepted in the above terms. The pension along with the arrears be disbursed to the Appellant within three months from today.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Q: Describe the citation of Chandra Kumar v. Union of India in brief ?

Ans: The larger issue before the Bench was whether the orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal set up under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 would be amenable to challenge before High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It will be noted that when the concept of tribunalisation was upheld in L Chandra Kumar v. Union of India  that the Court had unequivocally opined that the orders passed by the Tribunals would be subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of Indian Constitution.  x
Read more

Q: Describe the citation of S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India ?

Ans: Learned counsels fortified their arguments on the basis of observations in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India ,  more specifically in paragraph 42, where the Supreme Court held that the High Courts, under Article 226, have the power of judicial review even in respect of courts martial and the High Courts can grant appropriate relief if the said proceedings have resulted in denial of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution or if the said proceedings suffer from a jurisdictional error or any error of law apparent on the face of the record. x
Read more

Q: Elaborate the relevancy of citation of Ranjit Thakur v. Union Of India And Others ,Supreme Court Of India, Oct 15, 1987 with present case ?

Ans: Ranjit Thakur v. Union Of India And Others ,Supreme Court Of India, Oct 15, 1987 Appellant, Ranjit Thakur, joined the Armed Services on September 7, 1972, and was, at the relevant time, a Signalman in “4 Corps Operating Signal Regiment”. Apparently, appellant had not commended himself well to Respondent 4, who was the commanding officer of the regiment. On March 29, 1985, appellant was already serving out a sentence of 28 days' rigorous imprisonment imposed on him for violating the norms for presenting representations to higher officers. Appellant is stated to have sent representation complaining ill-treatment at the hands of Respondent 4 directly to the higher officers. Appellant was punished for that by Respondent 4. Army Act Section 41(2) Disobeying a lawful command given by his superior officer In that he at 15.30 hrs. on May 29, 1985 when ordered by JC 106251-P Sub Ram Singh, the Orderly Officer of the same Regiment to eat his food, did not do so. To try this offence a su...
Read more