Q: Elaborate the citation of Ex. Gnr Laxmanram Poonia (Dead) vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 February, 2017 ?

Ans: Ex. Gnr Laxmanram Poonia (Dead) vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 February, 2017.


The Appellant was enrolled in the Indian Army. It was the case of the Appellant that on the eve of Festival, he was overburdened with work due to scarcity of staff. Due to continuous restless duty hours for several days, he suffered hypertension resulting in lack of sleep and hunger. Ultimately, he requested the Commanding Officer of his Unit to sanction him leave considering his critical condition. However, instead of granting leave, the Commanding Officer got him admitted in 174 Military Hospital on 11.11.2007, acknowledging the critical condition of the Appellant. The Doctor diagnosed the Appellant to be suffering from acute schizophrenia like psychotic disorder. The Appellant was discharged from 174 Military Hospital on 14.03.2008. Thereafter, he was shifted to Military Hospital Chandimandir and was admitted to psychiatric ward on 28.08.2008. He was subjected to a Military Board held at 174 Military Hospital for his recategorisation. After some time, he was granted sick leave for a few days. However, he was again admitted to 174 Military Hospital on 15.02.2009, and was also subjected to a Medical Board and thereafter, he was discharged from the hospital and was sent to his Unit. As per the Appellant, he was again entrusted with hard duty on 02.05.2009 and was also compelled to work at night hours, because of which the disease so detected again aggravated. Ultimately, he had to be admitted to Command Hospital Chandimandir on 05.05.2009, from where he got discharged on 12.06.2009. He was again admitted to Command Hospital Chandimandir on 10.07.2009, from where he was discharged on 06.10.2009. He was brought before a duly constituted Invaliding Medical Board on 09.09.2009 to assess the cause and degree of disablement. The Invaliding Medical Board opined that he was suffering from 'acute Schizophrenia like psychotic disorder. Medical Board further opined that the disability being constitutional in nature is not connected with Military Service. His disability was assessed at 60% for life but was viewed as neither attributable to nor aggravated by Military Service. Ultimately, he was invalided out of service with effect from 07.10.2009 under Rule 13(3)(iii) of the Army Rules, 1954. His claim for grant of disability pension was forwarded to the Principal Controller, which was rejected on the ground that the disability suffered by the Appellant was neither attributable to nor aggravated by Military Service.
The Appellant challenged the order by filing an application before the Tribunal seeking disability pension. The Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the Appellant holding that the disability being 'constitutional' in nature was not connected with Military Service. His disability was assessed at 60% for life; but was viewed as neither attributable to nor aggravated by Military Service. The Tribunal specifically held that though the Invaliding Medical Board categorically opined that he was suffering from 'Acute Schizophrenia like psychotic disorder', the disability of the Appellant being constitutional in nature could not be considered to be connected with Military Service. Thus, holding that there was no casual connection between disablement and the Military Service for attributability or aggravation to be conceded, the Tribunal dismissed the application.
The Appellant expired and his wife filed application Under Section 31 of Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 before the Tribunal seeking leave to file appeal before the present Court against the final order passed by Tribunal and the same was dismissed by the Tribunal. Hence, the present appeal.
Held, while allowing the appeal: (i) It is clear that disability pension in normal course is granted to an individual: (i) who is invalided 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 specifically provided otherwise. A disability "attributable to or aggravated by military service" is determined as per the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982, as shown in Appendix II. Rule 5 of the said Rules relates to approach to be adopted while considering the question of entitlement to casualty pension award. 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. 
(ii) The Medical Board had not given any reason in support of its opinion, particularly, in reference to the fact that there was no note of such disease or disability available in the service record of the Appellant at the time of entering Military Service. The Medical Board should examine cases in the light of the etiology of the particular disease and only after considering all the relevant particulars of a case, the board should record its conclusions with reasons so as to enable the Pension Sanctioning Authority 
to examine the question of entitlement of pension as per Rules.
(iii) The Appellant was not suffering from any disease/disability at the time of entering into Military Service. It was on the Respondent to show that the Appellant was suffering from schizophrenia at the time of entering into service by producing any document viz. medical prescription etc. In the absence of any note in the service record in this regard at the time of joining the Military Service, the Medical Board should have called for the service records and looked into the same; but nothing was on record to suggest that any such record was called for by the Medical Board to arrive at the conclusion that the disability was not due to Military Service. The Medical Board simply stated that the disability is neither attributable to nor aggravated by Military Service. The Appellant was suffering from any such disease like schizophrenia at the time of entering into the Military Service, it would be presumed that the Appellant was in a sound mental condition at the time of entering into the Military Service and the deterioration of health has taken place due to Military Service. 
(iv) Hence, wife of the Appellant and other legal heirs shall be entitled to disability pension as per the Rules. The impugned order was set aside. The Respondents were directed to pay the disability pension to the wife and other substituted legal heirs of the deceased.
x

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