This appeal challenges a Single Judge's declaration granting disability pension to a discharged soldier. The High Court affirmed the order, holding the burden of proof lies with the authority to disprove service causation, which the appellants failed to discharge.
Appeal dismissed; judgment of learned Single Judge confirmed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/19TH KARTHIKA, 1939
WA.No. 132 of 2010 ( ) IN WP(C).8044/2007
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 8044/2007 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 21-05-2009
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT:
BY ADVS.SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD, CGC
SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:
GOPAKUMAR.P.K., NO.1373781 EX SAPPER,
GEETHANJALI HOUSE, KURAMPALA NORTH VILLAGE,, PANDALAM.P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.N. Ravindran & Devan Ramachandran, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -
W.A.No.132 of 2010
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th November, 2017
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
This appeal is preferred by the Union of India and one of its functionaries, impugning the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.8044 of 2007.
WA 132/2010
2
latent in him earlier. The learned Single Judge, however, allowed the writ petition with the following declarations and consequent directions:
“Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Exts.R1(a) and P2 orders are quashed. It is declared that the disease contracted by the petitioner and the consequent disability is attributable to military service. As such, the petitioner is entitled to pension taking into account the disability element also. Fresh orders in this regard shall be issued as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Consequent arrears of pension due to the petitioner shall also be disbursed within one month therefrom.”
The appellants have filed this appeal impugning the judgment of the learned Single Judge on the primary ground that the declaration made therein is erroneous and contrary to the pleaded facts.
WA 132/2010 3
altitude areas, suffering and enduring extreme climate is worthy of credence and there is nothing to discredit this version. The learned Single Judge has also recorded and as is also clear from the pleadings before us, that the appellants have not placed on file any document to show that the mental indisposition of the respondent was one that was inherent or latent in him and not as a consequence of his employment. The learned Single Judge has found that even the medical opinion, on the basis of which the appellants had entered this conclusion, has also not been placed on record, thereby incapacitating this court from entering into an effective adjudication on this issue. The Learned Judge has, therefore, concluded that the appellants have not discharged their onus of proving that the disability contracted by the respondent is not attributable to his employment.
WA 132/2010
4
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.
WA 132/2010
5
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 on the authority.”
WA 132/2010
6
In such circumstances, we see no reason to entertain this appeal and we find that the contentions raised herein are without merit. We thus dismiss this appeal confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge, but deem it appropriate not to make any order as to costs, leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs.
(P.N. Ravindran, Judge)
(Devan Ramachandran, Judge)
kav/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellants discharged the onus of proving that the respondent's schizophrenia was not attributable to his military service.
Whether the presumption of causation under Appendix II regulations applies when no latent disease was recorded at enrollment.
Whether the Single Judge's order directing disability pension arrears to the respondent was sustainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Baby v. Union of IndiaExplained¶34
Baby v. Union of India (2003 (3)KLT 362-FB)
Union of India
C.D.A. (Pension), Allahabad
Gopakumar.P.K.
P.N. Ravindran
Devan Ramachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
