9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 770X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mstances giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent was enrolled in the Infantry (Sikh Regiment) on 23.5.1987. He proceeded on annual leave on 31.3.1990 for a period of two months to his home town. During his leave period, the respondent suffered injuries being hit by a small wooden piece Gulli in the play of children and thus, his left eye was seriously damaged. He was admitted to Command Hospital, Chandimandir and remained there from 1.4.1990 to 25.4.1990. The respondent was operated upon twice and, subsequently, was discharged giving him sick leave from 26.4.1990 to 6.6.1990 and was placed in low medical category BEE (permanent). 3. The investigation/enquiry was conducted by Army Authorities and the court of inquiry vide o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lity pension alongwith 8% interest per annum from 31.5.2003, within a period of 3 months. Hence, this appeal. 5. Shri H.P. Raval, learned ASG appearing on behalf of Union of India, has submitted that the High Court committed an error allowing the appeal and reversing the judgments and decree of the courts below as the case of the respondent could not fall within the provisions of paragraph 179 of the Pension Regulations of the Army, 1961, Part-I, (herein after called the `Regulations ) as well as the findings and opinion of the Medical Board, a finding that the injury suffered by the respondent could neither be attributable to, nor could be aggravated by the military service. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. The judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Singh Rathore, (2008) 5 SCC 747). 8. In The Secretary Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity Ors., AIR 2010 SC 1285, this Court while placing reliance upon a large number of earlier judgments including Constitution Bench judgment in The University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao Anr., AIR 1965 SC 491, held that ordinarily, the court should not interfere with the order based on opinion of experts on the subject. It would be safe for the courts to leave the decision to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally can be. 9. This Court recently decided an identical case in Union of India Ors. v. Jujhar Singh, AIR 2011 SC 2598, and after reconsidering a large n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entitled to disability pension. 10. This view stands fully fortified by the earlier judgment of this Court in Secretary, Ministry of Defence Ors. v. Ajit Singh, (2009) 7 SCC 328. 11. The instant case is squarely covered by the ratio of the aforesaid judgment in Jujhar Singh (supra). We are of the view that the opinion of the Medical Board which is an expert body must be given due weight, value and credence. Person claiming disability pension must establish that the injury suffered by him bears a causal connection with military service. In the instant case, as the injury suffered by the respondent could not be attributable to or aggravated by the military service he is not entitled for disability pension. 12. In view of the ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
