Allahabad High Court
Brijendra Nath Singh vs Union Of India & Others on 8 August, 2017
Bench: Arun Tandon, Krishna Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 10
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 336 of 2016
Appellant :- Brijendra Nath Singh
Respondent :- Union Of India & Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Col. S.D. Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Bal Mukund,Pramod Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Hon'ble Krishna Singh,J.
This Intra Court appeal under Chapter-VIII, Rule-5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules has been filed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.5.2007.
The learned Single Judge has specifically taken note of the fact that the claim of the petitioner for disability pension had been examined in light of Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulation dealing with disability pension. It has been recorded that as per the opinion of the Medical Board, the disability suffered by the petitioner was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, therefore, it has been held that the petitioner was not entitled to disability pension. The learned Single Judge has specifically taken note of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) and others vs. S.Balachandran Nair reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 4391 for the proposition that the opinion of the Medical Board has normally to be accepted with regards to the cause of disease unless there are very strong reasons for not relying on the said Medical Report.
The learned Single Judge has further recorded that no sufficient reasons have been furnished by the petitioner on the basis whereof, the report of Medical Board holding that the disease was not attributable or aggravated by the military service can be discarded. The learned Single Judge has therefore found no merit in the petition and has dismissed the same thereby upholding the order of the military authorities refusing to grant disability pension under the order dated 23rd May, 1986 and order dated 9th June, 1987.
We have examined the contention of the appellant and the pleadings as well as the material brought on record. We find that in the facts of the case, the petitioner-appellant has hopelessly failed to bring on record any material, which could lead us to discard the opinion of the Medical Board qua the cause of disability suffered by the petitioner being not attributable to or aggravated by the military service.
In view of the aforesaid, we hardly find any good reason to interfere with the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge.
Counsel for the appellant, however, placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Veer Pal Singh vs. Ministry of Defence reported in 2013 (8) SCC 83. Suffice is to refer to Paragraph-18 of the judgment in the Controller of Defence Accounts (Supra) has been referred to and on facts, the said case has been distinguished by the Supreme Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner then placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dharamvir Singh vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2013 Page 2840 for the proposition of the employees did not suffer any ailment at the time of entry into service then the onus of proof is on the employer to establish that the disability had occurred not because of military service and not upon the employee concerned to prove otherwise.
We have carefully gone through the judgment of the Apex Court and we find that in Paragraph-22 of the said judgment, the Medical Board had not given any reason in support of its opinion and it is in that background that the Supreme Court had gone on to hold that when no disease or disability was noticed in the service record of the appellant at the time of acceptance of military service then it is for the authority to establish that the disability was not caused because of military service.
In the facts of the case, we find that cogent reasons have been recorded by the Medical Board for recording a conclusion that the disability suffered by the petitioner-appellant was not attributable to or aggravated by military service. The judgment is therefore clearly distinguishable in the facts of the case. As already noticed above in the case in hand, we do not find any material, which may lead us to discard the medical opinion. There is no merit in the appeal.
The appeal is dismissed, accordingly.
Order Date :- 8.8.2017
S Rawat
