Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 286 (KER)

Baby v. Union of India

2003-04-08

CYRIAC JOSEPH, JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN

body2003
Judgment :- 1. Who has to prove that the disability, which resulted in an individual being invalided from service, was attributable to or aggravated by military service. Does the onus lie on the authority or the individual? A Full Bench of this Court in Director General, B.S.F. v. Vijoy, 2000 (2) KLT 509, had taken the view that "the claim is made by a person claiming disability pension. Therefore, the initial burden is on him to establish that the injury sustained while in service was due to military service or was aggravated which contributed to invalidation from military service". However, when some of the present set of cases were posted before a Division Bench, it was contended that R.9 of the "Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982" contained in Appendix II of the Pension Regulation for the Army, 1961 had not been brought to the notice of the Bench. The rule clearly provides that "the claimant shall not be called upon to prove the conditions of entitlement." Thus, it was contended by the counsel for the respondent that the view taken by the Full Bench needs to be re-examined in the light of the said Rule. Hence, this reference by the Division Bench for consideration of the matter. 2. To answer the question in the abstract, a brief reference to the statutory provisions is essential. The Parliament enacted the Army Act, 1950 to make the provisions self-sufficient and to ensure that these were in conformity with the "new constitutional set up and present day requirements". The purpose was "to bridge the gap between the army and civil laws as far as possible in the matter of punishments for offences and, on the other, to eliminate the disparity between the corresponding provisions of the law governing the Army and the Air Force. So far as the present case is concerned, we are concerned with the provisions contained in Chap.15. S.191 of the Act empowers the Central Government to "make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act". The Rules can inter alia provide for "the removal, retirement, release or discharge from the service of persons subject to this Act". Similarly, under S.192 the Central Government can "make regulations for all or any of the purposes of this Act other than those specified in S.191". The Rules can inter alia provide for "the removal, retirement, release or discharge from the service of persons subject to this Act". Similarly, under S.192 the Central Government can "make regulations for all or any of the purposes of this Act other than those specified in S.191". S.193 requires that the Rules and Regulations "shall be published in the Official Gazette and, on such publication, shall have effect as if enacted in this Act". S.193(a) requires that "every rule and every regulation made by the Central Government shall be laid as soon as may be, after it is made, before each House of Parliament while it is in session, for a total of 30 days which may comprise in one session or in two or more successive sessions and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session, or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modifications in the rule or regulation or both Houses agree that the rule or regulations should not be made, be of no effect, as the case may be". 3. In exercise of the power under S.191, the Army Rules, 1954 were promulgated on November 27,1954. R.13 enumerates the authorities, which shall be competent to discharge persons from service on the grounds mentioned in the table. The table inter alia provides for the discharge of "persons enrolled under the Act, who have been attested can be discharged on fulfilling the conditions of enrolment or on completion of a period of Army service". They can also be discharged on "having been found medically unfit for further service". The order of discharge can be passed by the Commanding Officer on the basis of "the recommendation of an Invaliding Board". The power of discharge can also be exercised in case of persons who have not been attested. R.15 deals with the termination of service by the Central Government on grounds other than misconduct. The provision deals with officers. Their services can be terminated on account of inefficiency or physical disability. The reason for termination along with the particulars of the matters adverse to the officer has to be communicated. He is entitled to an opportunity "to urge any reasons he may wish to put forward in favour of his retention in service". Thus, the provision postulates the grant of opportunity to the officer before any adverse order is passed. The reason for termination along with the particulars of the matters adverse to the officer has to be communicated. He is entitled to an opportunity "to urge any reasons he may wish to put forward in favour of his retention in service". Thus, the provision postulates the grant of opportunity to the officer before any adverse order is passed. However, in case the Central Government finds "for reasons to be recorded in writing" that "it is not expedient or reasonably practicable to comply with the provisions", the requirements of opportunity etc. can be dispensed with. R.15(a) deals with the release of officers on medical grounds. R.16 provides as under: "16. Release.- A person subject to the Act may be released from the service in accordance with the Release Regulations for the Army or in accordance with any other regulations, instructions or orders made in that behalf". 4. It appears that in exercise of the power under S.192, the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 have been framed. Regulation 1 postulates that "these regulations shall apply to the personnel of the Army and all claims to pension, gratuity or allowance shall be regulated by the regulations in force at the time of an individual's retirement, release, resignation, discharge, death etc. as the case may be. Chapter II details with Commissioned Officers. S.3 of Chapter II provides for disability pensionary awards. Regulation 48 provides as under: "48A.(a). An officer who is retired from military service on account of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by such service and is assessed at 20 per cent or over may, on retirement, be awarded a disability pension consisting of a service element and a disability element in accordance with the regulations in this section; (b) The question whether a disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service shall be determined under the rules in Appendix II". A provision for the grant of 'disability pension' has been made even in respect of cases where the disability becomes manifest after retirement. This provision is contained in Regulation 54. Chapter III contains provisions in respect of Junior Commissioned Officers and other ranks etc. S.3 provides for the grant of special pensions and gratuities. S.4 of Chapter III deals with the "disability pensionary awards". This is the matter, which really arises in the present case. This provision is contained in Regulation 54. Chapter III contains provisions in respect of Junior Commissioned Officers and other ranks etc. S.3 provides for the grant of special pensions and gratuities. S.4 of Chapter III deals with the "disability pensionary awards". This is the matter, which really arises in the present case. Regulation 173 prescribes the "preliminary conditions for the grant of disability pension". It also provides the manner in which the question of attributability shall be decided. It reads as under: "173. Unless otherwise specifically provided, a disability pension may be granted to an individual who is invalided from service on account of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service and is assessed at 20 per cent or over. The question whether a disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service shall be determined under the rules in Appendix II".(Emphasis supplied) In Regulation 175, it has been provided as under: "175. If the disability of an individual is wholly or partly due to his serious negligence or misconduct, the amount of disability pension otherwise admissible may be reduced at the discretion of the competent authority". Regulation 183 governs the amount of disability pension which is payable to a person. The provision regarding the period for which the payment has to be made is contained in Regulation 185. 5. In the above noted provisions, particularly in Regulations 48 and 173, reference has been made to Appendix II. It embodies the Instructions issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence (Pension Branch) from time to time. It specifically refers to Regulations 48,173 and 185. Thus, the instructions can be treated as supplemental to the Regulations. Even otherwise, the provisions in Appendix II initially opened with the words - "The entitlement rules set out below apply in cases where the disablement or death, on which the claim to casualty pensionary award is based, takes place on or after the 1st April 1984. These rules apply to all personnel who are governed by military pension rules". Thus, it is clear that the instructions have a statutory character and colour. These are legally enforceable. The instructions were initially issued by different letters during the period from April 18, 1950 to March 21, 1957. Subsequently, these were modified with effect from 1982. 6. These rules apply to all personnel who are governed by military pension rules". Thus, it is clear that the instructions have a statutory character and colour. These are legally enforceable. The instructions were initially issued by different letters during the period from April 18, 1950 to March 21, 1957. Subsequently, these were modified with effect from 1982. 6. Paragraph 1 of the instructions, as initially issued, inter alia provided that "with effect from 1st April 1948 in supersession of all revious orders on the subject, the entitlement to disability and family pension, children's allowance and death gratuities will be governed by the following rules". It further provided that "invalidating from service is a necessary condition for the grant of a disability pension". An individual who at the time of his release under the Release Regulations is in a lower medical category than that in which he was recruited will be treated as invalided from service. In paragraph 2, the circumstances in which the disablement or death "shall be accepted as due to military service" were given. Paragraph 3 laid down that there must be "a casual connection between disablement and military service for attributability or aggravation to be conceded". Paragraph 4 said that while deciding, "the issue of entitlement all the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, will be taken into account and the benefit of reasonable doubt will be given to the claimant". In cases of field service, the benefit was to be given "more liberally". Paragraph 5 dealt with the post-discharge claims where the disability had arisen within 7 years after the discharge. It was inter alia provided that the benefit of doubt in determining attributability should go to the family of the deceased. Paragraph 6 dealt with the claim in respect of accidents. In paragraph 7, it was inter alia provided that "a disease which has led to an individual's discharge or death 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 military service. However, if medical opinion holds, for reasons to be stated, that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior to acceptance for service, the disease will not be deemed to have arisen during service. Paragraph 8 dealt with cases of enforcing effects of medical treatment during service. Paragraph 9 provided for assessment. 7. However, if medical opinion holds, for reasons to be stated, that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior to acceptance for service, the disease will not be deemed to have arisen during service. Paragraph 8 dealt with cases of enforcing effects of medical treatment during service. Paragraph 9 provided for assessment. 7. The Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards were amended vide Ministry of Defence letters dated November 22, 1983 and August 21, 1984. Paragraph 1 of the "Entitlement Rules for Casualty become non-effective on or after 1st January 1982". Paragraph 2 makes a provision for a transitory nature. Paragraph 3 mentions the categories of cases where the 1982 provisions are not applicable. Paragraphs 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 are relevant for the decision of the present case. These provide as under: "4. Invalidating from service is a necessary condition for grant of disability pension. An individual who, at the time of his release under the Release Regulations, is in a lower Medical category than that in which he was recruited will be treated as invalidated from service. JCO/OR and equivalent in other services who are placed permanently in a medical category other than 'A' and are discharged because no alternative employment suitable to their low medical category can be provided, as well as those who having been retained in alternative employment but are discharged before the completion of their engagement will be deemed to have been invalidated out of service. 5. The approach to the question of entitlement to Casualty Pensionary Awards and evaluation of disabilities shall be based on the following presumptions: Prior to and during service (a) A member is presumed to have been in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service except as to physical disabilities noted or recorded at the time of entrance. (b) In the event of his subsequently being discharged from service on medical grounds and deterioration in his health, which was taken place, is due to service. 7. Where there is no note in contemporary official records of a material fact on which the claim is based, other reliable corroborative evidence of that fact may be accepted. 8. Attributability/aggravation shall be conceded if casual contention between death/ disablement and military service is certified by appropriate medical authority. Onus of proof 9. The claimant shall not be called upon to prove the conditions of entitlements. 8. Attributability/aggravation shall be conceded if casual contention between death/ disablement and military service is certified by appropriate medical authority. Onus of proof 9. The claimant shall not be called upon to prove the conditions of entitlements. He/She will receive the benefit of any reasonable doubt. This benefit will be given more liberally to the claimants in field/ afloat service cases". 8. A perusal of the above quoted provisions clearly indicates that a person who is discharged from service "before the completion" of the requisite period of engagement is "deemed to have been invalided out of service". Under paragraph 5, a member of the service "is presumed to have been in good physical and mental condition" at the time of entry into service unless a physical disability was noted or recorded at the time of entrance. Paragraph 6 of the 1982 Rules is akin to paragraph 2 of the old Rules. If there is no note as contemplated under paragraph 5, the authority can rely upon other reliable and corroboratory evidence. Under paragraph 8, the attributability or aggravation has to be conceded by the authority if the appropriate medical authority certifies a casual connection between death/ disablement and military service. Paragraph 9 clearly provides that the claimant shall not be called upon to prove the conditions of entitlement. The benefit of doubt will be liberally given to him/her. This is a material departure from the original provision. 9. It is in view of the above provisions that the issue of onus as posed at the outset has to be examined. This matter was considered by the Full Bench in Vijoy's case. Their Lordships had taken the view that "the burden will be on the claimant to establish that the injury of the deceased was on account of military service" or aggravated by it. It was further held that the onus was of a rebuttable nature. The Medical Board has to deal with the matter liberally. The scope of judicial review "is rather limited as the High Court does not act as the appellate authority". 10. On a perusal of the judgment recorded by the Full Bench, it appears that the provisions of Appendix II as it existed prior to the year 1982 only were noticed. In particular, the change brought about by the new Rules was not considered. 10. On a perusal of the judgment recorded by the Full Bench, it appears that the provisions of Appendix II as it existed prior to the year 1982 only were noticed. In particular, the change brought about by the new Rules was not considered. Since the parties had proceeded on the basis of the original Rules/ Instructions, the provisions of the 1982 Rules were not considered by the Full Bench. Still further, it was only on account of the provision embodied in R.9 that the Division Bench had considered it necessary to refer the matter to a Larger Bench. In the normal course of events, this matter would have been placed before a Bench of five Judges. However, on examination of the matter, we find that there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the view taken by the Bench under the old rules. At present, the matter has to be examined only in the context of the new rules. Thus, it does not appear to be necessary to place the matter before a Larger Bench. Thus, we have proceeded to consider the issue. 11. On behalf of the Union of India, it has been inter alia contended by Mr. Pillai that the rules embodied in Appendix II are merely departmental instructions. These lay down guidelines for the authorities. The burden of proving the relevant facts lies on the person who makes the claim. The counsel emphasized that the Medical Board is an expert body. The aggrieved person has the remedy of appeal under the Rules/ Instructions. This Court should not interfere with the findings of the experts in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants, contended that the instructions have a statutory character. These have to be liberally construed. The onus of proving the relevant facts has been specifically placed on the authority. Thus, the claim as made by the claimants should be sustained. 12. The questions that arise for consideration are: 1. Who has to prove that the disability, which resulted in an individual being invalided from service, was attributable to or aggravated by military service? 2. What is the scope of judicial review? Regarding 1: 13. Mr. Pillai contended that the Rules and Regulations are merely for the guidance of the authorities. These are not legally enforceable. 14. Who has to prove that the disability, which resulted in an individual being invalided from service, was attributable to or aggravated by military service? 2. What is the scope of judicial review? Regarding 1: 13. Mr. Pillai contended that the Rules and Regulations are merely for the guidance of the authorities. These are not legally enforceable. 14. We are unable to accept this contention. Firstly, it may be mentioned that the rules and the pension regulations are statutory in character. These have been framed in exercise of the power under the Act. These confer legal rights. Thus, a citizen is entitled to seek the compliance of these provisions. Still further, it is in pursuance to the provisions contained in Regulations 48,173 and 185 that the Government of India has issued the instructions embodied in Appendix II. These are meant to fill up the lacuna in the Regulations. These have been issued by the rule making authority. Thus the instructions are supplemental to the statutory provisions. These are binding on the Government. The citizen is entitled to enforce the Instructions. 15. It is in the light of the above position that the issue as posed at the outset has to be examined. 16. Admittedly, every person is put through a regular physical test and medical examination at the time of his enrolment in the Army. It is in view of this factual position that in paragraph 5 of Appendix II, a presumption that the individual was "in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service" has been made. Still further, when a person is discharged from service before the completion of the full tenure on account of a physical disability, it would normally be on account of fall in physical fitness. What can be the cause? The disability may arise on account of an injury suffered during the course of performance of duties. It may also be the result of the stress and strain. It can even be caused by the climatic conditions. In fact, there can be a variety of circumstances, which may contribute to the disability. Thus, a young man who was in perfect health at the time of his enrolment may face a premature ouster from the service on account of a physical disability. It can even be caused by the climatic conditions. In fact, there can be a variety of circumstances, which may contribute to the disability. Thus, a young man who was in perfect health at the time of his enrolment may face a premature ouster from the service on account of a physical disability. When the career is cut short on account of the person being physically unfit, the question that would normally arise is - Is the disability not attributable to the military service? 17. In this context, it deserves notice that a candidate has to go through rigorous physical and medical tests before enrolment. Thus, the Regulations as well as Appendix II contain a provision that a member is presumed to have been in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service except as to physical disabilities noted or recorded at the time of entrance. In the event of his subsequently being discharged from service on medical grounds the deterioration in his health, which has taken place, should be presumed to be due to service. It is on this hypothesis that a claim for the grant of disability pension has to be examined by the competent authority. Such a claim can be made even in cases where the deterioration in physical health has occurred after the discharge from service on completion of full tenure. Thus, it is clear that the intention of the authorities is to compensate the service personnel not only in respect of the disability noticed during service, but even thereafter. 18. Another fact, which deserves mention, is that a person enrolled in the Army or in any other service is not highly educated. He may not be able to notice the minor changes occurring in his physical capacity on account of climatic conditions or the stress and strain of the service. The separation from family, sound of gunfire and climatic conditions could be silent but potent contributors. It appears that it is in view of this factual position that the provisions in Appendix II have been periodically modified. It deserves particular notice that by the instructions issued in the years 1983 and 1984, it was specifically provided that "the claimant shall not be called upon to prove the conditions of entitlement". The benefit of doubt was to be given to him. The provision clearly shifts the onus of proof. It is placed on the authority. It deserves particular notice that by the instructions issued in the years 1983 and 1984, it was specifically provided that "the claimant shall not be called upon to prove the conditions of entitlement". The benefit of doubt was to be given to him. The provision clearly shifts the onus of proof. It is placed on the authority. It is symbolic of a liberal approach. This is all the more so in case the disability occurs while the claimant was in the field or on sea. 19. In view of the above provision it appears reasonable to hold that as an abstract proposition of law, R.9 shifts the onus of proof from the individual to the authority. Thus, when an individual is enrolled after having been found to be in perfect health and no note regarding any kind of disability has been made at the threshold, he would be entitled to the grant of disability pension. The onus of proving that the disability is not attributable to the service or that an individual is not entitled to the claim of disability pension shall normally lie on the authority. 20. The above cannot, however, be an absolute rule. There are various problems, which can be hereditary. There can be cases where a physical condition may not be noticed despite a thorough medical checkup. After all, genes also play an important role. The situations can arise where it may be found that the individual was working in normal conditions. He was not under any unusual strain or stress. The particular ailment was not attributable to the service conditions. In fact, the family history as subsequently discovered might clearly disclose that the ailment had been experienced by the parent/s or other members. It is hereditary. On consideration of such factors and the opinion of medical board, the authority may conclude that the disability was not attributable to the service. 21. In this context, it deserves notice that even medical science is not perfect. In certain cases it can happen that even an obvious condition may not be detected or noted. The individual may also withhold the relevant facts. In an anxiety to get the job, he may not disclose the full facts. The medical tests may turn out to be wrong. The correct facts may come to light subsequently. In certain cases it can happen that even an obvious condition may not be detected or noted. The individual may also withhold the relevant facts. In an anxiety to get the job, he may not disclose the full facts. The medical tests may turn out to be wrong. The correct facts may come to light subsequently. Thus, even when a note with regard to the existence of a physical condition in the family was not made at the time of enrolment, the subsequent events or revelations may prove that the disease or condition was hereditary. In such a situation, the man cannot be rewarded despite his withholding the relevant information. It will be unfair to do so. Thus, the onus should and will shift to the claimant. 22. In view of the above, it is held that when an individual is physically fit at the time of enrolment and no note regarding any adverse physical factor is made at the time of entry into service and yet the individual is discharged before the completion of the full tenure on account of his physical disability, the initial onus of proving that the disability is not attributable to the Army service shall be on the authority. However, in a case where it is found on the perusal of the available evidence that the individual had withheld relevant information or that the service conditions were not such as could have resulted in the physical disability, the onus shall shift to the claimant. Regarding 2: 23. Mr. Pillai, learned Counsel for the Union of India, contended that an individual is discharged from service primarily when it is established by medical evidence that he is not in perfect health. The medical evidence is conclusive proof. The Court cannot go behind it. 24. Before proceeding to consider the question, it may be noticed that the Government of India has been periodically issuing amendments to the Rules. The provision in R.14 was amended vide corrigendum dated June 20,1996. A copy has been produced as Ext. R-1(c) with the counter-affidavit in W.A. No. 2388/1998. The Court cannot go behind it. 24. Before proceeding to consider the question, it may be noticed that the Government of India has been periodically issuing amendments to the Rules. The provision in R.14 was amended vide corrigendum dated June 20,1996. A copy has been produced as Ext. R-1(c) with the counter-affidavit in W.A. No. 2388/1998. R.14 was amended to provide as under: "R.14.- In respect of disease, the following Rules will be observed: (a) For acceptance of a disease as attributable to military service, the following two conditions must be satisfied simultaneously: (i) That the disease has arisen during the period of military service, and (ii) That the disease has been caused by the conditions of employment in military service. (b) If medical authority holds, for reasons to be stated that the disease although present at the time of enrolment could not have been detected on medical examination prior to acceptance for service, the disease, will not be deemed to have arisen during service. In case where it is established that the conditions of military service did not contribute to the onset or adversely affect the course of disease, entitlement for casualty pensionary award will not be conceded, even if the disease has arisen during service. (c) Cases in which it is established that conditions of Military service did not determine or contribute to the onset of the disease but, influenced the subsequent course of the disease, will fall for acceptance on the basis of aggravation. (d) In case of congenital, hereditary, degenerative and constitutional diseases, which are detected after the individual has joined service, entitlement to disability pension shall not be conceded unless it is clearly established that the course of such disease was adversely affected due to factors related to conditions of Military service. (2) These provisions will be effective from the date of promulgation of the Entitlement Rules, 1982. The pending cases shall be decided as per these provisions". 25. The above provision contained clear guidelines for the authority. In a case where the problem manifests itself during the period of military service, the medical authority has to consider the matter. It has to give a finding that the disease "although present at the time of enrolment could not have been detected on medical examination ". It has to give reasons for its findings. In a case where the problem manifests itself during the period of military service, the medical authority has to consider the matter. It has to give a finding that the disease "although present at the time of enrolment could not have been detected on medical examination ". It has to give reasons for its findings. Still further, the medical authority has to find that the service did not contribute to the onset or adversely affect the course of the disease. It has also to examine as to whether or not the disease is a congenitive, hereditary or constitutional condition. It must record its findings on all these matters. In case of failure to do so, the claim as made by the claimant is liable to be accepted. This provision has been enforced retrospectively with effect from the year 1982. 26. The rule as noticed above embodies a beneficient provision. It is meant to ensure a fair treatment to the person who suffers disability during service. It has to be liberally construed. Thus, while examining the decision of the competent authority, the parameters as laid down in the rule shall have to be kept in view. The Court shall ensure strict compliance with the rule while deciding the matter. It is true that a disease can be diagnosed by the doctor only. Even the cause can be ascertained by the experts alone. Thus, the opinion shall be entitled to all respect. But it may not be conclusive. The individual may place relevant material on record to show that the medical opinion is wrong. The court shall have to consider the matter in the light of the evidence on the file. 27. Otherwise, the issue of judicial review has already been examined by the Full Bench in Vijoy's case. We are in respectful agreement with the view as expressed by the Bench. It may only be added that under the instructions as complied in Appendix.2 after the letters of November 22, 1983 and August 21, 1984, the individual is examined by the Medical Board. Then he has the right of appeal against the order of the pension sanctioning authority. Thus all the questions of fact shall be properly examined by more than one authority. In fact, even an appellate committee has been constituted for the purpose. Then he has the right of appeal against the order of the pension sanctioning authority. Thus all the questions of fact shall be properly examined by more than one authority. In fact, even an appellate committee has been constituted for the purpose. In view of this position, it is clear that the scope of judicial review has to be limited. However, if it is found that the provision of the rule has not been complied with or that the decision of the concerned authority is perverse and contrary to the facts and the evidence on record, the court shall examine the matter. Not otherwise. The second question is answered accordingly. 28. Learned Counsel for the parties had also referred to the facts in some of the individual cases. These may be briefly noticed. 29. W. A. No. 2263/1998 In this case, a Sepoy, R. Muralidharan was discharged from service due to schizophrenia. The claim for disability pension was disallowed. His wife Smt. Sheela Kumari filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition in view of the decision of this Court in Ravi v. Union of India, 1998 (1) KLT 56. The Orders dated November 18,1988 (Ext. P-1), November 30,1989 (Ext. P3) and June 8,1990 (Ext. P5) were quashed. Aggrieved by the order, the Union of India has filed the present appeal. 30. By the order at Ext. P1, it was observed that the disability was not attributable to military service. By the second document Ext. P-3, the claimant was informed that the medical condition was not attributable to any service related stress or strain. The order was confirmed by the Government of India vide communication, dated June 8, 1990 at Ext. P5. Further more, along with the written statement, copies of the medical sheets were produced. 31. A perusal of the record shows that the Sepoy had been enrolled on November 18,1980. He was in the Army Ordinance Corps. In 1986, he was transferred to Assam unit. In 1986, he was posted in Ambala. The illness had started in September, 1987. A perusal of the medical report shows that the illness had occurred while he was "on annual leave without any apparent precipitating factor". The illness was "characterized by irrelevant and incoherent talk, passivity phenomenon, emotional incongruity, persecutory ideas, perceptual disturbances, phychomotor over-activity with episode of violence....". In 1986, he was posted in Ambala. The illness had started in September, 1987. A perusal of the medical report shows that the illness had occurred while he was "on annual leave without any apparent precipitating factor". The illness was "characterized by irrelevant and incoherent talk, passivity phenomenon, emotional incongruity, persecutory ideas, perceptual disturbances, phychomotor over-activity with episode of violence....". It was in view of his having had a psychic breakdown with persistence of residual features that he was considered unfit for military service. 32. On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that the learned Single Judge had erred in allowing the petition. In particular, it was emphasized that there was nothing to show that the mental condition was attributable to the military service. On the other hand, Mr. V. Iyer, learned counsel for the respondent, contended that the claim had been rightly allowed by the learned Single Judge. 33. Admittedly, the respondent's husband had been discharged from service on April 18,1988. The claim for disability pension was rejected vide Order dated November 18,1988. The representation was dismissed by the Government of India vide Order dated November 30,1989. The second representation was again dismissed on June 8,1990. The Writ Petition had been filed in the year 1996. There was a delay of almost more than six years. No explanation was given. 34. Even if the delay in filing the petition is ignored, the factual position does not support the respondent. In the Writ Petition, it was claimed that the Sepoy had been posted in a terrorist affected area. The problem had started in the year 1987. Thus, he was sent on leave. However, in paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit, the factual position has been explained. It has been pointed out that he had remained posted in peace stations. He had gone on annual leave from August 24, 1987 to October 28, 1987. The problem had started in September 1987. Before completion of the annual leave, he was admitted to the Military Hospital, Ambala Cantonment on October 27,1987. Then, he was transferred to the Command Hospital, Chandigarh. He was given "specialist treatment by Military Hospitals". No affidavit was filed to controvert this factual position. In this situation, it is clear that the respondent had not given the facts correctly. Before completion of the annual leave, he was admitted to the Military Hospital, Ambala Cantonment on October 27,1987. Then, he was transferred to the Command Hospital, Chandigarh. He was given "specialist treatment by Military Hospitals". No affidavit was filed to controvert this factual position. In this situation, it is clear that the respondent had not given the facts correctly. In any event nothing was pointed out to show that her husband was ever posted at any place where he may have gone through an unusual stress or strain. In this situation, it cannot be said that the view taken by the medical board was perverse or that the appellants had not discharged the onus of proving that the disease was not attributable to military service. 35. Mr. Iyer pointed out that in Ravi's case, it had been held that the onus was on the authorities. It is undoubtedly so. However, we are satisfied that in the circumstances of this case, the onus had been duly discharged. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 36. W.A. No. 228/1999 The factual position in this case is that K.K. Radhakrishnan Nair had been enrolled in the Army on February 10, 1970. He had suffered a nervous break down in March 1974 while he was posted in a peace area. He was admitted to the Military Hospital, Jalandhar on March 20,1974 due to "anxiety state with schizoid features". He was discharged from the hospital on July 30,1974. Thereafter, he was frequently admitted to the hospital for treatment of mental illness. Finally, he was placed in Low Medical Category "CEE" on June 8,1977. He was discharged from the service on September 23,1977. At that time, he was serving with the Engineering Workshop. The Medical Board had found that he was not fit to continue in service. The petition for the grant of disability pension was rejected vide Order dated March 5, 1979. He was informed that an appeal can be filed to the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Defence, within six months. The appeal was dismissed. Even the second appeal was turned down by the Ministry of Defence by Order dated February 25, 1981. In response to a further representation, he was informed that the disability was not attributable to the service conditions. The Writ Petition was filed in the year 1996 by Mr. Radhakrishnan Nair's wife. 37. The appeal was dismissed. Even the second appeal was turned down by the Ministry of Defence by Order dated February 25, 1981. In response to a further representation, he was informed that the disability was not attributable to the service conditions. The Writ Petition was filed in the year 1996 by Mr. Radhakrishnan Nair's wife. 37. The factual and legal position in this case is identical to that in W.A. No. 2263 of 1998. There is an unexplained and long delay. Even if the delay is ignored, nothing has been placed on record to show that the findings of the Medical Board that the disability was not attributable to service conditions, is wrong. Still further, the case was governed by the pre 1982 Rules. Resultantly, even this appeal is allowed. The Order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 38. W.A. No. 2388 of 1998 In this case, the first respondent was enrolled in the Indian Army on February 8,1979.On April 29, 1983 he was placed in Medical Category'C' (permanent). It was found that he was getting Fits. Ultimately he was discharged from the Army on March 28,1984. The first respondent made a claim for disability pension It was forwarded to the Chief Controller of 'Defence Accounts' (Pensions). It was rejected vide Order dated December 20,1984. Accordingly, no disability pension was given to him. A copy of the order has been produced as Ext. R-1(a) on the record. He did not prefer any appeal within the prescribed time. However, the appeal dated January 25, 1992 was also rejected. The decision was conveyed vide communication dated June 25, 1993. The first respondent alleges that thereafter he had submitted a representation dated January 10, 1994. The authorities dispute it. Thus, he approached this Court in 1996. His claim having been accepted by the learned Single Judge, the Union of India has filed the present appeal. 39. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants, it has been categorically averred that the disease was noticed when the first respondent was posted in a'peace area'. He was not under any mental or physical stress due to service. The Medical Board had found that it was not attributable to the military service. Thus, he was not granted the disability pension. 40. He was not under any mental or physical stress due to service. The Medical Board had found that it was not attributable to the military service. Thus, he was not granted the disability pension. 40. On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the first respondent had suffered Epileptic Fits. Since he was posted in a'peace area', it cannot be said that the disease was attributable to the military service. Thus the appeal should be allowed. 41. On a consideration of the matter, we find that the first respondent had filed an appeal dated January 25, 1992. In this appeal, it had been categorically averred by the first respondent that there was no case of Epilepsy in his family. He had suffered the attack only after his enrolment in the Army. In view of the provisions in the Rules, it should be presumed that the disease was attributable to the military service. This appeal appears to have been rejected on the ground of delay. The decision was conveyed to him vide letter dated June 25, 1993. 42. Apparently, the claim of the first respondent was not considered by the authority on merits. Nothing has been pointed out to show that the onus, which has been placed on the authority, was even prima facie discharged. In this situation, we find no ground to interfere with the Order passed by the learned Single Judge. It also deserves notice that in the present case no opinion of the medical experts has been placed on record to show that the conditions of service had not contributed to the onset of the disease. This was the requirement under R.14. This requirement has not been fulfilled. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. 43. W.A. No. 2637 of 1998 In this case, Cpl. Mamachan was enrolled as an Airman in the Indian Air Force in 1980. He was 18 years of age at that time. He had got training as Electrical Fitter, passed his B.A. examination and appeared for the LL.B. examination. Still further, he had been granted permission to privately appear for the M.B.A. programme being conducted by the University of Poona. He was promoted as a Corporal. On November 18,1993 he was coming back on his cycle from his place of work to the barrack. He was knocked down by a truck on the Bombay - Agra Highway. Still further, he had been granted permission to privately appear for the M.B.A. programme being conducted by the University of Poona. He was promoted as a Corporal. On November 18,1993 he was coming back on his cycle from his place of work to the barrack. He was knocked down by a truck on the Bombay - Agra Highway. He was removed to a hospital. He died within an hour of his reaching the hospital. 44. The parents of the deceased were informed. They made a claim for the grant of family pension. Their claim was rejected vide letter dated June 17,1995. The father of the deceased filed an appeal on September 25,1995. It was returned in original with a covering letter informing him that it was belated. Aggrieved by the action, the parents of the deceased filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 45. A counter-affidavit was filed by the respondents. It was inter alia averred that the Airman had met with a road accident when he was off-duty. The claim for pension was rejected by the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) Allahabad "as the cause of death is neither attributable to nor aggravated by Air Force service ". The appeal was initially returned in original on account of delay. However, it was received again. It was forwarded to the Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Defence vide letter dated March 13, 1996. The decision was awaited. It has been further averred that for the purpose of ordinary family pension, only the wife of the Airman, sons and unmarried daughters are eligible. As such, the father of the deceased Airman is not entitled to the grant of family pension. 46. The learned Single Judge, on a consideration of the matter, allowed the Writ Petition. Aggrieved by the Judgment, the Union of India and others have filed the present appeal. 47. On behalf of the appellants, it has been contended that the death was not attributable to the Air Force Service. Thus, the claim could not have been sustained. 48. A perusal of the Writ Petition shows that the Writ Petitioners have specifically pleaded that their son was coming back from the place of work to the barrack when he was knocked down by a truck. This averment has not been specifically denied. Thus, the claim could not have been sustained. 48. A perusal of the Writ Petition shows that the Writ Petitioners have specifically pleaded that their son was coming back from the place of work to the barrack when he was knocked down by a truck. This averment has not been specifically denied. Still further, under paragraph 12 of Appendix II, Note 2(e) it has been inter alia provided that a person while travelling back "from the appointed place of duty" is deemed to be on duty. Thus, it is clear that it was while coming back from duty that the deceased had met with the accident. In this situation, it could not be said that the death was not attributable to the service. Thus, the ground on which the claim for family pension was declined cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is held that the order was rightly set aside by the learned Single Judge. 49. No other point was raised. 50. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. 51. W.A. No. 777 of 1997 The respondent was enrolled in the Core of Signals on September 17,1975. On January 9,1984 he was invalided out of service as he was suffering from Epilepsy. His claim for disability pension was rejected on the ground that the disease was not attributable to the Army service. His Writ Petition having been allowed by the learned Single Judge, the respondents in the Writ Petition have filed the present appeal. 52. On behalf of the appellants it has been contended that there is nothing on record to establish that the disability was attributable to the Military service. On behalf of the respondent-claimant it was contended that in view of the provision contained in paragraph 20 of Appendix II, the claim for pension could not have been rejected. In conditions of unknown etiology, it has to be assumed that the disease had occurred on account of the military service. 53. Admittedly, the respondent was perfectly healthy when he had joined the service. Subsequently, he was discharged on account of illness. By virtue of the provision in paragraph 5 of Appendix II, it has to be presumed that the deterioration in his health had taken place "due to service". The appellants have not placed any material on record to show that there was any other cause. Subsequently, he was discharged on account of illness. By virtue of the provision in paragraph 5 of Appendix II, it has to be presumed that the deterioration in his health had taken place "due to service". The appellants have not placed any material on record to show that there was any other cause. Still further, in view of paragraph 20 it has to be assumed that Epilepsy was attributable to Army service. No evidence has been placed on record to show that the disease was hereditary or that there was any other cause, which may not be attributable to the Army service. 54. In view of the above, we find no ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 55. W.A. No. 1507 of 1998 The respondent was enrolled in the Corps of Signals, Indian Army on December 6,1977. On June 23,1984 he was admitted to the Naval Hospital at Cochin for abnormal behaviour. He was discharged from the hospital on August 27,1984. Thereafter he was again admitted to the Military Hospital at Ambala Cantonment. In view of his condition, he was transferred to the Command Hospital, Chandigarh. The condition having shown no improvement, he was examined by a Medical Board. It was found that he was suffering from Schizophrenia. He was found unfit for further retention in the service. On January 1, 1985 he was invalided out of the Indian Army. He made a claim for the grant of disability pension. It was rejected. The respondent made representations. The claim having not been accepted, he filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. It was registered as O.P. No. 2038 of 1992. 56. The claim was allowed vide Order dated January 12,1998. Aggrieved by the Order, the respondents in the Writ Petition have filed the present appeal. 57. Learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that the respondent had been discharged from the Army on accounts of psychic problems. The disease was not attributable to the conditions of service. Thus, the learned Single Judge had erred in granting the relief. On behalf of the respondent, it was contended that loneliness involved in Army service can lead to mental disturbance. Thus, the claim has been rightly allowed. Is it so? 58. The disease was not attributable to the conditions of service. Thus, the learned Single Judge had erred in granting the relief. On behalf of the respondent, it was contended that loneliness involved in Army service can lead to mental disturbance. Thus, the claim has been rightly allowed. Is it so? 58. A perusal of the counter-affidavit filed in response to the notice of the Writ Petition shows that the respondent had remained admitted at the Command Hospital, Central Command, Lucknow from September 18, 1981 to October 14, 1981. Thereafter, he had undergone treatment at various hospitals during the period from June 23, 1984 to December 31, 1984 for long intervals of time. During this period it was found that he was suffering from hallucination, persecutory delusion and delusion of infidelity of his wife. The eyesight was also impaired. The documents on record establish that he was given treatment. But he had shown no improvement. More than all these, it also appears from the report of the Classified Specialists (Psychiatry) at the Command Hospital, Chandigarh that the respondent's mother had mental illness. In this situation, it was perfectly possible for the authorities to conclude that the disease was hereditary and not attributable to Army service. Resultantly, the view taken by the authorities cannot be said to be perverse. 59. In view of the above, the Order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. It is consequently set aside. The appeal is allowed. 60. W.A. No. 258 of 1999 In this case, the respondent was enrolled in the Air Force on December 11,1968.On April 18,1977 he was discharged from military service as he was found to be suffering from Neurosis. He was placed in Medical Category'EEE'. His claim for disability pension was rejected vide order dated July 22,1977. He submitted a representation on June 28, 1992. It was rejected. The decision was conveyed by letter dated February 18, 1992. A copy of the Order is Ext. P4. It was observed that the claim cannot be accepted. It was pointed out that there was a delay of 141/2 years. Aggrieved by the decision, the respondent filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The claim was contested. However, the Writ Petition was allowed. Hence, this appeal. 61. Learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that the claim as made by the respondent was highly belated. It was pointed out that there was a delay of 141/2 years. Aggrieved by the decision, the respondent filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The claim was contested. However, the Writ Petition was allowed. Hence, this appeal. 61. Learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that the claim as made by the respondent was highly belated. The Writ Petition should have been rejected on the ground of delay. In any event, while rejecting the respondent's claim for disability pension, it was found that "the invaliding disease was neither attributable to nor aggravated by the Air Force Service". Thus, the learned Single Judge has erred in accepting the claim. Mr. Kuriakose, learned Counsel for the respondent, contended that the appeal had been arbitrarily rejected. 62. Admittedly, the respondent had been discharged from the Air Force on April 18,1977. His claim for disability pension was rejected vide Order dated July 22,1977. A copy has been produced as Ext. R-1(a) with the counter-affidavit. By this Order, the respondent was informed that he could file an appeal before the Government of India. He had failed to do so. However, a representation appears to have been submitted by him in November 1987. The reply was sent vide letter dated December 7,1987. It was after a long lapse of time that he filed the Writ Petition in the year 1992. It is true that immediately before filing the Writ Petition he had submitted a representation to the authority. However, that was rejected on the ground of delay. Taking the totality of circumstances into consideration, we are satisfied that the objection of delay as raised on behalf of the appellants is well founded. 63. Even on merits, we find that the old rules were applicable. The authorities had found that the condition was not attributable to military service. Nothing has been pointed out to show that it was not so. Taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration, we find that the view taken by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. The appeal is allowed. The Judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside. No costs. 64. W.A. No. 443 of 2001 The respondent had joined the military service on March 27, 1976. He was discharged on April 27, 1988 as he was found to be suffering from Neurosis. His claim for disability pension was rejected vide Order dated August 8, 1983. The Judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside. No costs. 64. W.A. No. 443 of 2001 The respondent had joined the military service on March 27, 1976. He was discharged on April 27, 1988 as he was found to be suffering from Neurosis. His claim for disability pension was rejected vide Order dated August 8, 1983. Aggrieved by the Order, the respondent filed an appeal. Vide letter dated August 14,1991 he was informed that his claim could not be accepted. A copy has been produced as Ext. R-4. Aggrieved by the action, he approached this Court through a Writ Petition. His petition having been allowed, the respondents in the Writ Petition have filed the present appeal. 65. Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard. Admittedly the respondent's claim for the disability pension was rejected on September 29,1983. A copy of the order is Ext. R-3 with the counter-affidavit. Thereafter he had filed the first representation on March 20, 1991. There was a delay of more than seven years. The rejection was conveyed to him vide letter dated August 14, 1991. No explanation for this long delay has been given. Still further, in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants, it has been averred that the respondents was examined by the Medical Board of Doctors at the Command Hospital, Western Command, Chandigarh on February 19,1983. The Medical Board had "opined that the disease of the petitioner was not related to service conditions". Thus, there is a categorical opinion recorded by the Medical Board. 66. As had been found by the learned Single Judge, the respondent was medically fit at the time of his enrollment. However, two facts, which stare us in the face are that the respondent had not challenged the decision of the authority to reject his claim for grant of disability pension for a period of more than seven years. Still further, he had also not placed any material on record, which may even remotely suggest that the opinion as recorded by the Medical Board of Doctors was wrong. Even in the Writ Petition, nothing has been pointed out to show that the findings were wrong or that the physical condition was actually attributable to the service condition. There is nothing to indicate that the service had caused any stress. Even in the Writ Petition, nothing has been pointed out to show that the findings were wrong or that the physical condition was actually attributable to the service condition. There is nothing to indicate that the service had caused any stress. He has not even indicated as to what is his physical condition after discharge from the Army. 67. Taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration, the view taken by the learned Single judge cannot be accepted. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The petition is dismissed. No costs. 68. W.A. No. 804 of 1999 The respondent had joined the Indian Navy on September 8,1989. He was discharged on August 14,1995 as he was found to be suffering from Obsessive Compulsive Neurosis. His claim for disability pension was rejected vide letter dated January 1, 1997. A copy of the order is Ext. P-4. The respondent filed an appeal on January 14, 1997. The rejection was conveyed vide letter dated February 7, 1997. A copy has been produced as Ext. P-6. On March 10, 1998 the respondent approached this Court through a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge accepted the respondent's claim vide judgment, dated, June 25,1998. Hence this appeal. Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard. On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is untenable. 69. Learned Counsel for the respondent pointed out that the appeal had been rejected without assigning any reason. 70. After hearing Counsel for the parties, we find that the averments made in the Writ Petition had not been controverted by the respondents. Still further, the respondent's appeal had not been rejected by assigning any reason. The decision was conveyed in a cyclostyled form, which does not disclose any reason. In this situation, we find that the order at Ext. P-6 cannot be sustained. The appeal is disposed of with the direction that the appellant No.1 shall consider and decide the respondent's claim after hearing him in accordance with the rules. The needful shall be done within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. 71. W.A. No. 1087 of 1997 The respondent was enrolled in the Indian Army on March 23,1981. The needful shall be done within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. 71. W.A. No. 1087 of 1997 The respondent was enrolled in the Indian Army on March 23,1981. He was discharged on account of eye problem on April 13, 1990. His claim for disability pension was rejected vide Order dated January 5, 1991. The respondent filed an appeal. It was rejected on the ground of delay vide Order dated August 28,1991. A copy of the Order is Ext. P4. Aggrieved by the Order, he filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. It has been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide Order dated January 10, 1997. Hence this appeal. 72. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Single Judge had erred in accepting the claim of the respondents. Learned Counsel submitted that the respondent was working as a gunner in the Artillery. The visional dystrophy suffered by the respondent was clearly attributable to the service conditions. 73. A perusal of the averments in the counter-affidavit shows that the respondent had been serving in the Regiment of Artillery. He had served with 93 Field Regiment upto February 17,1985. Then he was posted to 31 Air Observation Post. He had remained posted at different places. It was in the course of service that he had developed the eye trouble. Initially he was admitted in Military Hospital, Madras. Thereafter he was transferred to the Military Hospital, Secunderabad. Nothing has been placed on record to show that the eye problem was not attributable to the military service. In fact, it appears that the duties as gunner had caused the problem. Resultantly, the view taken by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference. The appeal is dismissed. 74. W.A. No. 3550 of 2001 The respondent had joined the Army Medical Corps on August 30,1969. He was discharged on January 11, 1993 on account of unspecified psychosis. The respondent's claim for disability pension was rejected vide Order dated November 29, 1994. A copy of this Order is Ext. P-1 on record. The appeal was rejected vide Order dated July 24,1996. A copy of the Order is Ext. P4. Aggrieved by the Orders, the respondent approached this Court through a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 75. The respondent's claim for disability pension was rejected vide Order dated November 29, 1994. A copy of this Order is Ext. P-1 on record. The appeal was rejected vide Order dated July 24,1996. A copy of the Order is Ext. P4. Aggrieved by the Orders, the respondent approached this Court through a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 75. The learned Single Judge found that the respondent had an exemplary career. In January 1988, he had been posted in Sri Lanka as a member of the Indian Peace Keeping Force. He had remained there till July 1989. During this period, he had suffered serious injuries in a bomb blast. Thereafter, the physical problems had developed. In any case, the injuries had aggravated his mental condition. It was further found that there was no family history of any phychic problem. Thus, the claim of the respondent was upheld. The impugned orders were quashed. Hence this appeal. 76. Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard. Admittedly, the respondent had served the Indian Army for a long period of 24 years. There was no evidence of the problem being hereditary. The learned Single Judge has found that the physical injuries suffered by the respondent during the operation in Sri Lanka had aggravated the situation. Nothing has been placed on record to show that the findings are wrong. No reason has been given for the conclusion that the disease was not attributable to the Army Service. Resultantly, we find no ground to interfere with the Order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. No costs. 77. O. P. No. 24762 of 1999 The petitioner in this case was enrolled in the Central Reserve Police Force on October 22,1968. He had served in different places. On June 5, 1977 he was discharged from the service as he was found to be suffering from Epilepsy. The petitioner alleges that he had submitted a representation for the grant of disability pension as contemplated under the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules. Copies of the representations dated October 21, 1998 and May 11, 1999 have been produced as Exts. P-2 and P-3. Vide letter dated June 15,1999 at Ext. P-4 the petitioner was informed that he was not eligible for invalidation pension. Aggrieved by that he has approached this Court through the present Writ Petition. Copies of the representations dated October 21, 1998 and May 11, 1999 have been produced as Exts. P-2 and P-3. Vide letter dated June 15,1999 at Ext. P-4 the petitioner was informed that he was not eligible for invalidation pension. Aggrieved by that he has approached this Court through the present Writ Petition. He prays that the Order dated June 15, 1999, a copy of which is Ext. P-4, be quashed and that the respondents be directed to grant him disability pension. 78. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It has been inter alia averred that the petitioner was found to be permanently incapacitated for further service on account of Epileptic Fits by the Civil Surgeon at Hyderabad. He was served with a notice "proposing his invalidation from service on the basis of the medical certificate vide letter dated 30th June 1977". He had expressed his willingness "to go on invalidation and had not challenged the Medical Board decision". He had not suggested that the disease had been caused due to any stress or strain. The representations submitted by the petitioner were highly belated. The Epileptic Fits were not attributable to the service. The claim was not admissible under the Rules. 79. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit reiterating the claim. 80. The matter was placed before a learned Single Judge of this Court. Vide Order dated March 13, 2000 the case was ordered to be posted for hearing along with the cases referred to the Full Bench. 81. We have considered the matter. Admittedly, the petitioner had been discharged from service on June 5, 1977. He had made no claim for pension for a period of 21 years till October 21, 1998. Apparently there was an inordinately long delay. No explanation for this delay has been given. Resultantly, we find no ground to interfere at this stage. The Original Petition is dismissed. 82. As a result of the above, we hold that:- (1) The instructions issued by the Central Government regarding the grant of disability pension are supplemental to the statutory provisions. These are binding on the Government. The citizen is entitled to enforce the Instructions. He is entitled to claim the benefits available thereunder. The Original Petition is dismissed. 82. As a result of the above, we hold that:- (1) The instructions issued by the Central Government regarding the grant of disability pension are supplemental to the statutory provisions. These are binding on the Government. The citizen is entitled to enforce the Instructions. He is entitled to claim the benefits available thereunder. (2) When an individual is physically fit at the time of enrolment and no note regarding any adverse physical factor is made at the time of entry into service and yet the individual is discharged before the completion of the full tenure on account of his physical disability, the initial onus of proving that the disability is not attributable to the Army Service shall be on the authority. However, in a case where it is found on the perusal of the available evidence that the individual had withheld relevant information from the authority at the time of his enrolment; or that there is in fact a family history regarding the disease and the problem is genetic; or there is clear medical evidence to show that the service conditions were not such as could have resulted in the physical disability, the onus shall shift to the claimant. (3) The issue of judicial review has already been examined by the Full Bench in Vijoy's case. We are in respectful agreement with the view as expressed by the Bench. It may only be added that under the instructions as compiled in Appendix II after the letters of November 22, 1983 and August 21, 1984, the individual is examined by the Medical Board. Then he has the right of appeal against the order of the pension sanctioning authority. Thus all the questions of fact shall be properly examined by more than one authority. In fact, even an appellate committee has been constituted for the purpose. In view of this position, it is clear that the scope of judicial review has to be limited. However, if it is found that the provision of the rule has not been complied with or that the action of the concerned authority is perverse and contrary to the facts on record, the Court shall examine the matter. Not otherwise. In view of the above, W.A. Nos. 1507 of 1998, 2263 of 1998, 228 of 1999, 258 of 1999 and 443 of 2001 are allowed. For the reasons given above, W.A. Nos. Not otherwise. In view of the above, W.A. Nos. 1507 of 1998, 2263 of 1998, 228 of 1999, 258 of 1999 and 443 of 2001 are allowed. For the reasons given above, W.A. Nos. 777 of 1997, 1087 of 1997, 2388 of 1998, 2637 of 1998, 3550 of 2001 and O.P. No. 24762 of 1999 are dismissed. W.A. No. 804 of 1999 is disposed of. No costs.