UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs. RAVINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 31st Dec., 2007 in L.P.A. No. 212 of 2006 passed by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu by which it affirmed the orders of the Courts below entitling the respondent to disability pension taking the view that the respondent who had joined Army service in 1998 as a Rifleman (Sepoy) got the ailment 'Solitary Generalised Tonic Clonic Seizure' which was attributable to Army service.

(2.) The issue involved herein is no more res integra. It is not in dispute that in case the injury suffered by military personnel is attributable to or aggravated by military service, he becomes entitled for disability pension. It is also a settled legal proposition that opinion of the Medical Board should be given primacy in deciding cases of disability pension and the court should not grant such pension brushing aside the opinion of the Medical Board. (See: Union of India & Anr. Vs. Baljit Singh, (1996) 11 SCC 315; Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dhir Singh China, Colonel (Retd.), (2003) 2 SCC 382; Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) & Ors. Vs. S. Balachandran Nair, AIR 2005 SC 4391; Union of India & Ors. Vs. Keshar Singh, (2007) 12 SCC 675; and Union of India & Ors. Vs. Surinder Singh Rathore, (2008) 5 SCC 747).

(3.) In The Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall Vs. 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 Vs. 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.