Civil Appeal No. 5922 of 2012. Case: Veer Pal Singh Vs Secretary, Ministry of Defence. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Civil Appeal No. 5922 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: (Party-in-Person) and For Respondents: Chandan Kumar and Sashank Bajpai, Advs. |
| Judges | G.S. Singhvi, Ranjana Prakash Desai and Sharad Arvind Bobde, JJ. |
| Issue | Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007; Pension Regulations - Regulations 173, 423 |
| Citation | 2013 (5) ABR 798, 2014 (II) AD (SC) 160, AIR 2013 SC 2827, 2013 (5) AWC 5322 SC, JT 2013 (10) SC 71, 2013 LabIC 3276, 2013 (6) MahLJ876, 2013 (5) MLJ 841, 2013 (4) MPLJ 493, 2013 (8) SCALE 686, 2013 (8) SCC 83, 2014 (1) SCC (LS) 69, 2013 (4) SCT 359 (SC), 2013 (3) SLJ 21 (SC), 2013 (3) UPLBEC 2103 |
| Judgement Date | July 02, 2013 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
G.S. Singhvi, J.
-
This appeal is directed against order dated 19.12.2011 of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Lucknow Bench (for short, 'the Tribunal') dismissing the application filed by the Appellant for grant of leave to file appeal against orders dated 14.7.2011 and 16.9.2011 passed in Transferred Application No. 1431/2010 and Review Application No. 22/2011 respectively.
-
The Appellant was enrolled in the Army (Corps of Signals) on 20.6.1972 in Medical Category "AYE". Before his enrolment, the Appellant was subjected to medical examination, the report (Annexure R-II) of which is reproduced below:
PRIMARY MEDICAL EXAMINATION REPORT
PLACE: MEERUT
Date: 22/5/72Sd/-
[RK Gupta]
Captain AMC
Recruiting Medical Officer -
After completion of training, the Appellant was posted in 54 Infantry Division Signals Regiment and his regular service commenced with effect from 21.2.1974. After about two years, he was admitted in Military Hospital, Secunderabad for the treatment of "INTESTINAL-COLIC". He was discharged from the hospital on 18.2.1976. Between March, 1976 to October, 1977 he was treated in different Army Hospitals at Pune, Secunderabad and Meerut. He was downgraded to Medical Category "CEE" (Temporary) for a period of six months with effect from 3.1.1977. His case was considered on 14.11.1977 by the Invaliding Medical Board held at Military Hospital, Meerut and on its recommendations, he was discharged from service. His claim for disability pension was rejected by Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad on the ground that the disease, i.e., Schizophrenic Reaction, which was the cause of his discharge was not attributable to the military service.
-
The Appellant challenged his discharge from military service and rejection of his claim for disability pension in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42946/1997 filed before the Allahabad High Court. He prayed that a fresh Medical Board be constituted to assess his disease and disability. The same was disposed of by the Allahabad High Court vide order dated 26.3.1998 and a direction was given to the competent authority to decide the Appellant's representation. Thereafter, the Government of India, Ministry of Defence rejected the Appellant's representation vide order dated 16.9.1998, paragraph 9 of which reads thus:
You have been diagnosed as a case of SCHIZOPHRENIC REACTION and not LUNATIC. As such your request to produce you before a medical board to examine you whether you are Lunatic or free from LUNACY does not arise. Therefore no resurvey medical board can be held in your case.
-
The Appellant challenged the aforesaid order in Writ Petition No. 40430/1999 and prayed that the Respondents be directed to constitute a Review Medical Board to re-evaluate his disease.
-
The second writ petition filed by the Appellant remained pending before the High Court for 13 years. On the establishment of Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (for short, 'the Act'), the same was transferred to the Tribunal and was registered as Transferred Application No. 1431/2010. The Tribunal examined the record of the Medical Board, referred to the judgment of this Court in Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. A.V. Damodaran (2009) 9 SCC 140 and dismissed the application by making the following observations:
In view of the aforesaid the Medical Board's opinion is to be accorded supremacy. We in exercise of our jurisdiction can not sit over the opinion expressed by the Medical Board which is an expert body. The disease that the applicant was suffering from has been found to be constitutional and not aggravated by military service. We can not hold anything contrary to the medical opinion.
-
The review application and the application filed by the Appellant for grant of leave to appeal were dismissed by the Tribunal with a cryptic observation that the recommendations made by the Medical Board are binding and the same cannot be subjected to judicial review.
-
The Appellant, who appeared in person, referred to report dated 22.5.1972 of the Recruiting Medical Officer as also report dated 14.11.1977 of the Invaliding Medical Board and argued that in the absence of evidence about his disease, i.e., Schizophrenic Reaction at the time of enrolment, the opinion of the Psychiatrist, who examined him, could not be relied upon for recording a finding that his disease is constitutional and is not attributable to military service. The Appellant submitted that mere irritability or quarrelsome nature cannot lead to an inference that he was suffering from Schizophrenic Reaction and the Tribunal committed grave error by declining his prayer for making a reference to the Review Medical Board. He also invited the Court's attention to the averments contained in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed before this Court to show that the disease had developed after entering the service and argued that it should be treated as directly attributable to the military service.
-
Learned Counsel for the Respondent fairly stated that except the opinion of the Psychiatrist-Major (Mrs.) N. Lalitha Rao, no other evidence is available to support the opinion of the Medical Board that the Appellant was suffering from Schizophrenic Reaction. He also conceded that at the time of enrolment, the Appellant was not suffering from any disease but argued that the Court cannot sit in appeal over the opinion formed by the experts who constituted Invaliding Medical Board.
-
We have considered the respective arguments. For the sake of convenience, the relevant portions of the proceedings of the Invaliding Medical Board which constituted the foundation of the Appellant's discharge from Army and denial of disability pension read as under:
CONFIDENTIAL
MEDICAL BOARD PROCEEDING INVALIDING ALL RANKS
Field/Operational/Overseas Service: Giving dates and place
PART-I
PERSONAL STATEMENT
(The questions should be answered in the individual's own words. This statement will be checked from official records as far as possible)
-
Give particulars of previous service in ARMY/NAVY/AIR/FORCE and state whether you were invalided out of Service.
-
Give particulars of any diseases, wounds or injuries from which you are suffering:
-
Did you suffer from any disability mentioned in question 2 or anything like it before joining the Armed Forces? If so give details and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O.A. No. 168 of 2016. Case: Signalman Prasannan N.P. Vs Union of India and Ors.. Armed Forces Tribunal
...of 2011. Learned counsel further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court had also held in Veer Pal Singh v. Union of India & Others 2013 (8) SCC 83, that there is nothing like exclusion of judicial review of the decision taken by a Medical The learned counsel further submitted that while ......
-
O.A. No. 168 of 2016. Case: Signalman Prasannan N.P. Vs Union of India and Ors.. Armed Forces Tribunal
...of 2011. Learned counsel further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court had also held in Veer Pal Singh v. Union of India & Others 2013 (8) SCC 83, that there is nothing like exclusion of judicial review of the decision taken by a Medical The learned counsel further submitted that while ......