Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdev Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 18 November, 2024
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Sudeepti Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150028-DB
CWP-789-2024 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP-789-2024
Reserved on: 12.11.2024
Pronounced on: 18.11.2024
Sukhdev Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Argued by: Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocate with
Ms. Roopan Atwal, Advocate and
Ms. Srishti Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Pathak, Sr. Panel Counsel for respondent
No.1 to 3/UOI.
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner herein
prays for the setting aside of the order dated 15.11.2011 (Annexure P-1)
as passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh, wherebys
the claim of the petitioner for grant of disability pension became
declined.
Factual Background
2. The petitioner was enrolled in the Army on 20.02.1963 and
was discharged from service on 19.09.1969. While in service, he
incurred disability, namely, 'Hypermetropic Astigmatism with
Amblyopia (Left eye)'. The release medical board assessed his
disability) @ 20%. The disability element claim of the petitioner was
rejected by the Competent Authority, thus on the ground that the supra
disability) was neither attributable to nor being aggravated by rendition
of military service.
1 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150028-DB
CWP-789-2024 [2]
2. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal on
24.12.1976. However, the said appeal being time barred was not
entertained by the authorities concerned.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Civil Writ Petition before
this Court on 28.10.2007, whereby he cast a challenge to the afore
rejection order. The said Civil Writ Petition was transferred to the
Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh for adjudication, however, the
same was dismissed vide order dated 15.11.2011(Annexure P-1). The
operative part of the said verdict is extracted hereinafter.
"Thus in our view, "Hypermetropia can also
possibly not be said to be, in any, manner, related to military
service of the short span, for which the petitioner has served.
Thus, either of the disabilities, in our view also,
cannot be said to be, in any manner, related to military
service. Thus, we do not find any ground to differ from the
opinion of the competent medical authority, being the
Medical Board, which opined the disability to be congenital,
not related to military service and neither attributable to nor
aggravated by military service.
The petition, thus, has no force, and is
dismissed."
5. Feeling dis-satisfied from the afore dis-affirmative order,
the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition before this Court.
Inferences of this Court.
6. Initially, prima facie, the instant writ petition is completely
time barred. Resultantly the instant time barred petition is hit by the
vices of delay and laches and prima facie thus requires dismissal.
7. Moreover, though the counsel for the petitioner submits,
that since in terms of the verdict rendered on 09.01.2020, by the
2 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150028-DB
CWP-789-2024 [3]
Hon'ble Apex Court, in case titled as Balkrishna Ram Vs. Union of
India and another, to which Civil Appeal No. 131 of 2020 became
assigned, the jurisdiction to challenge the orders rendered by the
learned Armed Forces Tribunal became vested in the High Court. He
further, submits that since in quick sequel to the making of the said
verdict, thus the present petitioner did institute the instant writ petition.
Therefore, he contends that since as of now, the writ petition is
maintainable before this Court. Resultantly, the bar of the delay and
laches does not work as a stumbling block against the present petitioner
thus in his assailing the impugned decision recorded on 15.11.2011, by
the learned Armed Forces Tribunal concerned.
8. Even the said argument prima facie, cannot be accepted by
this Court, as unless in contemporaneity to the passing of the impugned
verdict in the year 2011, the Apex Court through passing any interim
orders rather had permitted the High Courts to exercise jurisdiction
upon verdicts pronounced by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal,
thereupons, the remedy then available to the present petitioner, thus was
to access the Hon'ble Apex Court rather for his therebys challenging
the impugned order. However, he did not do so. Contrarily, subsequent
to the passing of the decision by the Apex Court in case titled as
Balkrishna Ram Vs. Union of India and another (supra), and, that too
in the year 2024, thus after almost thirteen years elapsing since the
passing of the impugned decision by the learned Armed Forces
Tribunal, he has chosen to challenge before this Court, hence the said
decision made on 15.11.2011, by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal.
3 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150028-DB
CWP-789-2024 [4]
9. Importantly also when the decision rendered in case titled
as 'Balkrishna Ram Vs. Union of India and another (supra)' was
made on 09.01.2020, over the SLP (supra) which became
registered/filed before the Apex Court in the year 2017, whereas, the
impugned order became passed in the year 2011. Resultantly theretos,
thus a prompt challenge was required to be made, whereas, the
challenge thereto became delayed uptil 2024, whereupon an inference
ensues, especially when no tangible explication, rather emanates from
the petitioner qua his omission to promptly recourse his apt remedies
against the impugned order, qua the writ petition being prima facie,
stained with pervasive vices of delay and laches.
10. Be that as it may, yet this Court is required to be advancing
the cause of justice. Moreover, this Court is also required to be doing
substantial justice. Importantly also in case the impugned order is made
with a grossest non application of mind, wherebys, the impugned order
becomes construable to be non est and void. Resultantly, therebys, the
bar of limitation and/or of the belated claim being hit by the vices of
delays and laches rather would not become attracted.
11. Before proceeding to make an effective adjudication upon
the present writ petition, it is necessary to dwell upon the Guide to
Medical Officers (2002) (Amended) 2008. The relevant portion of the
said speaks about the necessity of existence of a causal connection
inter-se the respective entailments of disability or death, upon the
defence personnel, rather with the service rendered by him, as a defence
personnel. The said relevant portion thereof, becomes extracted
hereinafter.
4 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150028-DB
CWP-789-2024 [5]
" Death or disability may be due to wounds, injury or disease.
Evidence of causal connection or otherwise, in cases of disease,
can be obtained in various ways. For instance, the man may
have admitted when he was enrolled, that he suffered from the
disease previously; or in statements made before or on
admission to hospital, he may have explained when he began
feeling unwell or out of sorts, adding how his time shortly prior
to that was spent, thereby giving an indication or clue to the
proximate time and circumstances of possible source of
exposure. It may be that the consensus of medical opinion is
against the acceptance of the particular disability as due to
service. That will constitute evidence that it is not attributable
to service, but then the disease may have been worsened by
service and therefore aggravated by it. ...
12. Moreover, in the further therein paragraph, it is spoken that
where the available evidence is not conclusive, the pros and cons
should be carefully weighed with a view to decide whether, on the
whole, the preponderence of probability as opposite to balance of
probabilities against the claimant is such as to exclude all reasonable
doubt.
13. Furthermore, the further thereins speakings are also
extracted hereinafter, the apt portions whereofs become underlined.
Chapter - II
Entitlement : General Principles
1. Although the certificate of a properly constituted
medical authority vis-à-vis the invaliding disability, or
death, forms the basis of compensation payable by the
government, the decision to admit or refuse entitlement is
not solely a matter which can be determined finally by the
medical authorities alone. It may require also the
consideration of other circumstances e.g. service
conditions, pre-and post-service history, verification of
5 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150028-DB
CWP-789-2024 [6]
wound or injury, corroboration of statements, collecting
and weighing the value of evidence, and in some
instances, matters of military law and discipline.
Accordingly, Medical Boards should examine cases in
the light of the etiology of the particular disease and after
considering all the relevant particulars of a case, record
their conclusions with reasons in support, in clear terms
and in a language which the Pension Sanctioning
Authority, a lay body, would be able to appreciate fully in
determining the question of entitlement according to the
rules. In expressing their opinion medical officers should
comment on the evidence both for and against the
concession of entitlement. In this connection, it is as well
to remember that a bare medical opinion without reasons
in support will be of no value to the Pension Sanctioning
Authority.
2. xxxxx
3. If it is established on evidence that the disease was
brought about by service conditions, then attributability
is clearly indicated. If on the other hand, a disease not
attributable to service--having been of pre-enrolment
origin or having its origin in other than service
conditions, has been influenced in its subsequent course
by conditions of service, the claim would stand for
acceptance on the basis of aggravation.
Evidence for Entitlement Purposes
4. Opinion on entitlement must be impartially given in
accordance with the evidence, the benefit of any
reasonable doubt being given to the claimant.
5. xxxx
6. xxxx
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
6 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150028-DB
CWP-789-2024 [7]
inaccuracy of the record in a particular case or
otherwise. xxxxx
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 on 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 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. xxxx
14. Now, from the supra extracted underlined relevant portions
of Guide to Medical Officers (2002) (Amended) 2008, it has to be
determined whether the declaration made by the Medical Board,
inasmuch as, the disease 'Hypermetropic Astigmatism with Amblyopia
(Left eye)', rather being a congenital disease, thus requires the same
becoming accepted.
15. Initially for determining the above, an allusion is required
to be made to medical examination report, which became prepared at
the time of the present petitioner becoming enrolled in military service,
whereins, candid speakings occur, that at that time, the petitioner being
7 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150028-DB
CWP-789-2024 [8]
declared to be fit and/or being declared to be disease free and/or the
said disease remaining undetected.
16. Though in view of the supra, the counsel for the
respondent, thus may not prima facie, well contend that the declaration
made by the Medical Board (Annexure P-3), wherebys the said disease
was declared to be congenital in nature thus being a well made
declaration nor also prima facie, the counsel for the respondent may
also not further well contend, that as such the denial of disability
pension to the present petitioner, rather was apt, thus on the purported
premise qua the disease (supra) becoming neither aggravated by nor
being attributable to military service.
17. Be that as it may, though the entailment of the said disease
on a defence personnel, may be post his enrolment as a member of the
combatant defence establishment. Moreover though at the stage of
happening qua enrolment of the defence personnel either in the navy,
army or the air force, thus the medical examination, as then made upon
him, rather may not unravel the disease which may become
subsequently detected. Moreover, though thereby prima facie, the
subsequent entailment of a disease upon any personnel serving in any
of the wings of the defence establishment, may prima facie, thus
become construable to arise from rendition of military service and/or
the eruption thereof, may become construable to become aggravated by
or being attributable to military service.
18. In other words, the subsequent eruption besides detection
of a disease, may be an ill event which may thus arise, as the same may
be, earlier was in a state of dormancy, especially at the time of the
8 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150028-DB
CWP-789-2024 [9]
apposite enlistment taking place. Resultantly, when then the apposite
disease may have remained undiscoverable, reiteratedly at the stage of
the apposite preliminary medical examinations becoming made upon
the defence personnel. In consequence, if the eruption of any disease
takes place but post the enrolment of the defence personnel concerned,
and, which may require the same being declared to be congenital, yet
the said declaration requires that a deep incisive research becomes
made by the medical board relating to :
a) the advent of the disease;
b) the duration thereof ;
c) the family history and his pre service history;
19. In other words, the genetic origin of the disease, thus has to
be imperatively discovered through employments of the State of Art
medical techniques by the members of the Medical Board, rather both
at the time of the apposite enlistment taking place besides subsequently
also. If the said is done and ultimately a well reasoned decision is
recorded vis-à-vis the disease, which befell any defence personnel, but
post his enrolment, thus being congenital. Resultantly the said made
reasoned decision may render the relevant ill event, which befalls a
defence personnel, to be construable to be neither attributable to nor
becoming aggravated by military service. In sequel, therebys there
would be a well denial of disability pension to the concerned.
20. Moreover, in case the entailment of the disease, occurs
during the performance of service by the Army Personnel, thereupon
but naturally, it may be a sequel of the defence personnel concerned,
thus rendering service or the same being a sequel of his facing hostile
9 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150028-DB
CWP-789-2024 [10]
service conditions. Contrarily, its origin may be on account of factors
other than service conditions. For instance, the said entailment may
arise when the defence personnel concerned, thus evidently but for a
prolonged duration of time, rather remaining away from rendering
active military service or may be during his staying in a foreign land,
and that too, without his becoming deployed there to render service as a
combatant on behalf of the country.
21. Significantly, the above instances, wherebys, there may be
a denial of disability pension to the present petitioner, when neither
become averred nor become proven by the respondent, thus thereons
there may not be any denial of disability pension to the present
petitioner.
22. Be that as it may, a useful assistance for determining
whether the befallment of any disease vis-à-vis any member of the
defence personnel, but post his being enrolled in the army, despite at
the initial stage, upon his becoming enlisted, as a member of the
combatant defence establishment, rather the same remaining
undetected, yet the apposite eruption thus post enlistment hence being
construable to be either congenital or being construable to become
aggravated or being attributable to military service, thus is acquired,
from, the principles set forth in the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court, in case titled as Dharamvir Singh Vs. Union of India,
reported in (2013) 7 SCC 316. The relevant paragraphs of the said
verdict are extracted hereinafter.
29. A conjoint reading of various provisions,
reproduced above, makes it clear that:
10 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150028-DB
CWP-789-2024 [11]
"(i) Disability pension to be granted to an
individual who is invalidated from 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 over.
The question whether a disability is attributable or
aggravated by military service to be determined under
"Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982"
of Appendix-II (Regulation 173).
(ii) 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 r/w Rule 14(b)].
(iii) 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).
(iv) 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)].
(v) 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. [14(b)].
(vi) 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. [14(b)]; and
(vii) It is mandatory for the Medical Board to
follow the guidelines laid down in Chapter-II of the "Guide
11 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150028-DB
CWP-789-2024 [12]
to Medical (Military Pension), 2002 - "Entitlement : General
Principles", including paragraph 7,8 and 9 as referred to
above.
30. We, accordingly, answer both the
questions in affirmative in favour of the appellant and
against the respondents"
23. An incisive reading(s) of the above extracted principles,
though pointedly declare, that when a disability becomes entailed upon
any member of the combatant defence establishment, and which is to
the extent of 20% or over, thereupon, though any such disabled member
is required to be invalided from the Army, but yet he is required to be
assigned the benefit of disability pension.
24. Nonetheless, the assignment of disability pension to any
member of the combatant defence establishment, who becomes entailed
with a disability in a quantum of 20% or more, but imperatively
requires a declaration from the Medical Board, rather candidly
pronouncing that the said attained disability being attributable to or
becoming aggravated by military service. The said declaration becomes
enjoined by the "Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards,
1982" of Appendix-II (Regulation 173).
25. Furthermore, though thereins a presumption is assigned
vis-à-vis the sound physical and mental health of any member of the
defence establishment concerned, especially when at the stage of his
becoming enrolled, there is no note or record about his becoming beset
with any disease. Moreover, though thereins there is also a further
presumption, that when any deterioration theretos, thus occurs
subsequently, therebys the said happening of deterioration(s) or
onsettings of any disease, rather is to be presumed to be a sequel of his
12 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150028-DB
CWP-789-2024 [13]
rendering service as a member of the defence establishment.
Imperatively, the onus for proving the non endowments qua benefits
(supra) vis-à-vis the concerned, but is rested on the employer, and in
case, the said onus remains un-discharged, thereupon, the claimant
becomes entitled to receive disability pension. Moreover, all the facts
and circumstances attendant to the rendition of service by the
concerned, are to be closely scrutinized, thus for declaring whether the
onset of any disease vis-à-vis the concerned, is a sequel qua renditions
of military service and/or the same being aggravated by or being
attributable to military service.
26. Be that as it may, thereins becomes also set forth a further
principle(s) that yet there can be denial of disability pension to the
concerned, but only upon :
a) At the time of acceptance of the concerned in military
service, some notings becoming recorded by the Medical
Board vis-a-vis his being beset with a disease which
however, becomes concluded to be yet not rendering him
unfit to become enlisted.
b) Any further deterioration thereofs, may also
subsequently become concluded by the Medical Board, to
not arise from rendition of military service nor being
attributable to military service, rather the same being a
congenital disease.
27. Further, if the medical opinion holds that the disease could
not have been detected on medical examination of the concerned being
made, thus prior to his becoming enlisted in service, thereupons, the
same will not be deemed to have arisen during service, yet in the
13 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150028-DB
CWP-789-2024 [14]
situation (supra), the Medical Board is required to state the reasons for
so concluding.
28. Moreover, it is also declared in supra, that it is mandatory
for the Medical Board to follow the guidelines laid down in Chapter-II
of the "Guide to Medical (Military Pension), 2002 - "Entitlement :
General Principles".
29. Therefore, it has to be now determined whether in terms of
the above principles, whether at the time of enlistment of the present
petitioner in the Army, thus after a preliminary medical examination
being made vis-a-vis his health, thus a note became recorded about
some disease besetting him and/or whether some note became appended
that the said disease was in a dormant stage. Moreover, it is also
required to be determined, from the facts at hand, whether there is a
causal nexus inter-se the eruption of the disease, and/or the onsettings
thereofs, on to his person, thus post the enrollment of the present
petitioner taking place, vis-a-vis the active renditions by him of military
service, wherebys, this Court may conclude that the onset of the disease
but rather was a sequel of his rendering service in the Army and as such
was attributable or became aggravated by his rendering military service.
30. In addition, it is also required to be gathered from the
records, whether the Medical Board, did initially proceed to make a
detailed incisive antecedental check, particularly appertaining to the
advent of the disease, through employments of State of Art medical
techniques, thus unveiling the block chain genetic connection,
wherefroms, rather the disease became sourced. Moreover, if the said
employment fails. Resultantly, therebys it may become concluded qua
14 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150028-DB
CWP-789-2024 [15]
eruptions thereof, thus subsequent to the apposite enlistment taking
place, rather was not congenital but owed its origin to rendition of
military service besides it being attributable to or becoming aggravated
by performance of military service. Contrarily, if the supra employed
techniques at the stage of apposite enlistment taking place, thus by the
Medical Board concerned, leads to a conclusion, that there are rather
dormant incidences of any disease, but yet the said dormant disease not
prohibiting the enlistment of any personnel in the army, navy or air
force. Resultantly the subsequent active detection/eruption thereofs,
during the course of rendition of military service, but would naturally
lead to a well conclusion by the Medical Board, that its active eruption
but became sourced from an effective causal genetic connection
wherebys there would be denial of disability pension.
31. However, now in the said endeavour, this Court is required
to be extracting the contents of the opinion, as became recorded by the
Release Medical Board. In the said regard, the relevant part No.5 as
occur in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents to the CWP
No.16790-2007, is extracted hereinafter:-
"XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX
In the instant case, the duly constituted Release Medical
Board opined that the disability "HYPERMETROPIC
ASTIGMATISM WITH AMBLOPIA (LEFT EYE}" of the
petitioner is constitutional in nature and thus not
connected with military service."
32. A reading of the records, discloses that at the time of the
apposite enlistment taking place rather no note became made in terms
of the principles (supra) declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case
15 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150028-DB
CWP-789-2024 [16]
titled as Dharamvir Singh Vs. Union of India (supra) by the Medical
Board, that some disease which however, did not forbid the present
petitioner, to become enlisted in the Army, did make its preliminary
onsettings. If so, the declaration of law in judgment (supra) that
therebys there is a presumption that the incurring of the said disease
was a sequel of rendition of service, is required to be favourably
endowed vis-a-vis the petitioner. Though the said presumption is
rebuttable but the onus to lead evidence to rebut the said presumption
became cast upon the respondents. However, the said cast evidence
adducing discharging onus vis-a-vis the respondents, rather for
cogently rebutting the said presumption, but naturally also did cast an
onerous duty also upon the Medical Board, to engage itself in the
endeavour of unearthing, through employments of the State of Art
block chain genetic causal connection technique(s), wherebys it may
became unraveled that the onsetting of the disease onto the army
personnel, became sourced from antecedental genetic family history.
Moreover, therebys it was also required to be stated in the medical
opinion, that the disease but for a well formed reason rather was a
congenital disease and became neither aggravated by nor became
attributable to military service.
33. However, a reading of the records, discloses that it has
been recorded in a stereo typed form and no reasons have been recorded
to the extent (supra). Reiteratedly, since no evidence to rebut the
presumption (supra) has been led by the respondents, therebys, this
Court is constrained to give no weightage to the opinion of the medical
board. Conspicuously, no credence can be assigned to the supra ill
16 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150028-DB
CWP-789-2024 [17]
informed reason, besides therebys the onsetting of the disease cannot be
said to be a sequel of antecedental genetic family history. Contrarily, it
is required to be declared to arise from rendition of military service. In
addition, it is required to be declared to be attributable or becoming
aggravated by rendition of military service by the present petitioner.
34. Be that as it may, in the impugned order, the learned AFT
concerned, proceeded to deny the claimed relief to the present
petitioner, thus, on the following extracted premises.
"Then we take up the other disability 'Hypermetropia'.
This accordingly to the studies obtained from internet, is a
common vision defect in which the individual has difficulty
in focusing on near objects. The vision imperfection is
usually caused by an eye ball, that is too short, or a lens that
is not round enough, probably because the Cornea is too flat.
This commonly affects people during middle age, during
their forties or fifties. But, it may also be present from birth.
According to National Health Service, UK, approximately
13.2 per cent of British people between 20 and 25, have
Hpermetropia and 17.4 per cent have it in their early forties.
While, accordingly to American Academy of Ophthalmology,
over twelve million Americans of age forty and older, are
Hypermetropic."
35. The erection of the said premises for denying relief to the
present petitioner is mis-founded, inter alia, on the following counts:-
(a) The generalized opinion made therein naturally cannot
efface the effects of the declaration(supra), wherebys, a dire necessity
became cast upon the Army Medical Board concerned, to both at the
time of the enlistment of the Soldier in the Army, and, to subsequently
during the phase of the present petitioner, thus, entailing the apposite
disability, rather undertake the employment of medical tools relating to
17 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150028-DB
CWP-789-2024 [18]
therebys detections being made of antecedental genetical effects, thus,
resulting in the entailment of the disability(supra).
(b) The said generalized opinion is made only in respect of
the United Kingdom and America and cannot omnibusly become
applied to India.
(c) Conspicuously, when on an individual to individual
case, through employments of medical techniques(supra), thus, in terms
of the declarations made hereinbefore, there would be an ably formed
opinion that the origin of the disease was genetical and did not arise
from the rendition of military service by the present soldier, nor it was
attributable to, nor became aggravated by rendition of military service.
Final Order of this Court.
36. In aftermath, this Court finds merit in the writ petition and
with observations above, the same is allowed.
37. The impugned order (Annexure P-1) is quashed and set
aside but with a direction to the respondents concerned, to process the
disability pension case of the petitioner besides grant him the benefits
of roundings off as pronounced in judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in case titled as 'Union of India Vs. Ram Avtar', reported
in 2014 SCC Online 1761.
38. The above exercise may be done within a period of three
months from today.
39. Since there is delay on the part of the petitioner in filing of
the instant writ petition besides raising a prompt motion against his
rejection of disability pension claim, therefore, in terms of settled
position of law, as pronounced in the verdicts rendered by the Apex
18 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150028-DB
CWP-789-2024 [19]
Court in Civil Appeal No. 5151-5152 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C)
Nos. 3820-3821 of 2008 titled as Union of India and Others Vs.
Tarsem Singh and in Civil Appeal No. 274 of 2007 (Arising out of
SLP (Civil) No. 881 of 2006) titled as Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India
and Others, decided on 18.01.2007, the arrears shall be restricted for
a period of three years from the date of filing of the instant writ
petition.
40. Since the main case itself has been decided, thus, all the
pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
18.11.2024 JUDGE
Anjal**
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
19 of 19
