Rajumon T.M. vs Union of India & Ors.

(ii) all evidence (direct and circumstantial), material on record must be considered in this respect; (iii) benefit of reasonable doubt will be given to the claimant and must be construed more liberally in case of field service; (iv) type of service area i.e., peace service area or field/active service area is immaterial in determining the attributability of the disability on service conditions; (v) a disease causing discharge will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service if no note of it was made at the time of the individual’s acceptance for service in the armed forces; (vi) if as per medical opinion of medial board / medical officer (backed by reasons), disease could not be detected on medical examination before acceptance for service, the disease will not be deemed to have arisen during service; (vii) the opinion of the Medical Board/medical officer, regarding actual cause of the disability or death and the circumstances in which it originated will be regarded as final; (viii) question of attributability to service and attendant circumstances will be decided by the pension sanctioning authority; and (ix) CO will furnish concerned medical reports to the medical officer/medical board as the case may be – Tribunal rightly culled out the legal principles from various judgments of this Court but the application thereof to the facts of this case was improper – As per Regulation 173 read with Appendix II (particularly clause 4) of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 and Regulation 423 of the Regulations for Medical Services for Armed Forces 1983. [Paras 9-17]

Medical Board’s opinion was not backed by reasons and thus was arbitrary and against mandatory applicable provisions: Held: As per the original medical records, Petitioner was not suffering from Schizophrenia when he joined the service – Some parts of Petitioner’s medical records were left blank and hence the board’s conclusion that Petitioner’s disease was constitutional personality disorder is erroneous because the board did not consider the medical records in the first place – The Board also failed to provide reasons for its opinion that Petitioner’s disease was a constitutional personality disorder – Providing reasons was “crucial, critical, decisive and necessary” rather than being a formality in terms of Regulation 423(d) as pension sanctioning authority had to determined grant/denial of disability pension based on such reasons as board’s opinion was final – In present case, board’s opinion was arbitrary for being devoid of reasons – Liberal approach must be adopted while interpreting provisions of disability pension (Reliance placed on Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya v. Distt. Development Officer, Dahod, (2022) 16 SCC 343 – Moreover, a Schizophrenia serviceman faces additional challenges in proving a causal linkage given the impairment caused to his cognitive skills by the said disease (Reliance placed on Veer Pal Singh v. Ministry of Defence, (2013) 8 SCC 83. [Paras 18-31] Burden of proof as to disability and ground of denial of disability pension is on the concerned authority: Held: In present case, the authority discharged Petitioner based on the condition of the Petitioner, instead of Petitioner seeking for discharge from service and thus burden of proof as to disability and ground of denial of disability pension was on the concerned authority, which they failed to prove – The Appeal was allowed and the authority was directed to grant disability pension and other benefits to Petitioner with immediate effect – No arrears for invalid pension were granted except for last three years. [Paras 32-39]