Summary
A soldier was discharged in 1997 on administrative grounds as an undesirable soldier under Army Rule 13(3) III(v), not on medical grounds. The Release Medical Board found his seizure disorder neither attributable to nor aggravated by service. His claim for disability pension was rejected in 1998 and his appeal in 2000; he never challenged the discharge. About twenty years later the Armed Forces Tribunal ordered a Resurvey Medical Board and granted disability pension. The Supreme Court set this aside. Disability pension arises where a disease leads to discharge, and Rule 14 of the Entitlement Rules, 1982 and Rajbir Singh apply only to invalidation on medical grounds. The Tribunal does not sit in appeal over a Medical Board's opinion, and entitlement cannot be decided on a medical examination held two decades after discharge. The claim should not have been entertained at all.
Issues
- Whether a soldier discharged on administrative grounds as undesirable, whose disability was found not attributable to or aggravated by service, is entitled to disability pension.
- Whether the Tribunal could direct a Resurvey Medical Board and grant disability pension about twenty years after discharge, relying on Rule 14 of the Entitlement Rules and Rajbir Singh.
Provisions considered
- Rule 13(3) III(v), Army Rules, 1954The discharge was on administrative grounds as an undesirable soldier, not for medical disability, and was never challenged. (¶¶ 2, 11, 12, 21)
- Rule 14(b) and (c), Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982Rule 14(b)'s rebuttable presumption applies only where a disease leads to discharge or death, and even then Rule 14(c) requires proof that service conditions contributed to its onset. Neither was satisfied here. (¶¶ 19, 20, 22, 23, 24)
- Regulation 183, Army Pension Regulations, 1961The respondent claimed disability pension under this regulation before the Tribunal; the claim was held not maintainable. (¶ 10)
Held
- As the discharge was on administrative grounds and not caused by the ailment, the Release Medical Board's opinion did not entitle the respondent to disability pension; in any event it found the disability not attributable to service. A discharge not questioned for twenty years could not be challenged. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- The Tribunal does not sit in appeal over a Medical Board's expert opinion. Without any infirmity in the Release Medical Board's decision-making process, there was no reason to direct a Resurvey Medical Board, least of all two decades later; a medical examination so long after discharge cannot decide entitlement. (¶¶ 13, 15, 16)
- Rajbir Singh concerned soldiers invalidated out on medical grounds. Rule 14(b) applies only when a disease leads to discharge or death, its presumption is rebuttable, and a disease arising in service is not automatically attributable to service; Rule 14(c) still requires proof that service conditions contributed to its onset. (¶¶ 18, 20, 22, 23)
- The Tribunal erred in presuming that any disability not noted at recruitment but detected later entitles a soldier to pension with the onus on the employer; its finding that the respondent's unauthorised absences were due to his ailment was conjectural, and the Resurvey Board assessed only the extent, not the cause, of disability. (¶¶ 21, 24, 25, 26)
Result
Appeal allowed; the Tribunal's judgment and order of 18.02.2020 set aside. No order as to costs.