Supreme Court Denies Disability Pension for Schizophrenia: Narsingh Yadav vs. Union of India (2019)

Date of the Judgment: October 3, 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 1083

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.

Can a mental disorder, specifically Schizophrenia, be automatically attributed to military service if it wasn’t documented at the time of a soldier’s enrollment? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case concerning a soldier’s claim for disability pension. The court examined whether the soldier’s condition was a result of his service or a pre-existing condition that was not detected during his initial medical examination. This judgment clarifies the criteria for granting disability pensions in cases involving mental health issues within the armed forces. The two-judge bench comprised of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Hemant Gupta.

Case Background

Narsingh Yadav was enrolled in the Indian Army on December 2, 2003, as a Craftsman (Military Rank). He was initially posted at 3 EME Centre, Bhopal, from December 2, 2003, to August 23, 2005, and then at AD Static Workshop from August 24, 2005, until he was examined by the Invaliding Medical Board. Both postings were at peace stations.

Yadav was treated for a mental disorder, first at INHS, Nivarini Chilka on September 7 and 8, 2006, then at Command Hospital, Kolkata from September 9, 2006, to December 23, 2006. Further treatment was received at Military Hospital, Allahabad from January 21, 2007, to February 21, 2007, and finally at Command Hospital, Kolkata from February 23, 2007, until his examination by the Invaliding Medical Board.

The Invaliding Medical Board diagnosed him with Schizophrenia and assessed his disability at 20% for five years. However, the board concluded that his condition was neither attributable to nor aggravated by his military service. Consequently, he was discharged from service on May 8, 2007. Yadav sought a disability pension, which was rejected by the department and later by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Lucknow.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following rules and guidelines:

• Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982: These rules outline the conditions for granting disability pensions to armed forces personnel. Rule 5 states that a member is presumed to be in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service, except for noted disabilities. Rule 14(b) states that a disease leading to discharge is deemed to have arisen in service if not noted at the time of acceptance, unless medical opinion states it could not have been detected.
• Rule 14 of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 as amended in 1996: Amended clauses state that a disease must have arisen during military service and be caused by the conditions of employment. It also mentions that if a disease was present at the time of enrolment but could not be detected, it will not be deemed to have arisen during service. Further, entitlement to disability pension is not conceded for congenital, hereditary, degenerative, and constitutional diseases unless it is established that the course of such disease was adversely affected due to factors related to conditions of military services.
• Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pensions), 2002: This guide lists certain diseases that may escape detection at the time of enrolment, including mental disorders, epilepsy, and relapsing forms of mental disorders.

The court also referred to the principle that a member of the armed forces is presumed to be in sound physical and mental condition at the time of entry into service if there is no note or record to the contrary made at the time of such entry.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that since his Schizophrenia was not noted at the time of his enrollment, it should be presumed to be attributable to or aggravated by his military service.
• He relied on the judgments in Ex. Gnr. Laxmanram Poonia (Dead) through Legal Representatives v. Union of India & Ors. [(2017) 4 SCC 697], Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India & Ors. [(2013) 7 SCC 316], and Union of India & Anr. v. Rajbir Singh [(2015) 12 SCC 264], which held that if a disease is not noted at the time of enrollment, it should be attributed to military service.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the appellant’s Schizophrenia was not caused or aggravated by his military service.
• They contended that the appellant’s postings were in peace stations and his duties as a Vehicle Mechanic were not of a nature that would cause stress leading to mental imbalance.
• The respondents relied on the amended Rule 14(d) of the Entitlement Rules, which states that for congenital, hereditary, degenerative, and constitutional diseases, entitlement to disability pension is not conceded unless it is clearly established that the course of such disease was adversely affected due to factors related to conditions of military services.
• The Medical Board’s opinion was that the disease was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.

Submissions Table:

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument relied on the principle that any disease not noted at the time of enrolment should be presumed to be attributed to military service, which was innovative in the sense that it sought to apply this principle to mental disorders, which are often difficult to detect at the time of enrolment. The respondent’s argument was innovative in the sense that it relied on the amended Rule 14(d) of the Entitlement Rules, which was not considered in the previous judgments cited by the appellant.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether Schizophrenia, a mental disorder, can be presumed to be attributable to or aggravated by military service if it was not noted at the time of enrolment, especially when the individual was posted in peace stations and the nature of the job did not cause stress.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Ex. Gnr. Laxmanram Poonia (Dead) through Legal Representatives v. Union of India & Ors. [(2017) 4 SCC 697]* The Court distinguished this case because the appellant was overburdened with work, which was not the case here.
• Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India & Ors. [(2013) 7 SCC 316]* The Court distinguished this case, stating that while it held that a disease not noted at the time of enrolment is presumed to be attributable to service, the facts were different and the amended rules were not considered.
• Union of India & Anr. v. Rajbir Singh [(2015) 12 SCC 264]* The Court distinguished this case, stating that while it held that a disease not noted at the time of enrolment is presumed to be attributable to service, the facts were different and the amended rules were not considered.
• Veer Pal Singh v. Secretary, Ministry of Defence [(2013) 8 SCC 83]* The Court referred to this case where the matter was sent to Review Medical Board due to infirmity in the report of the Medical Board. However, the court noted that there was no such infirmity in the present case.
• Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982, Rule 5 was considered to establish the initial presumption of sound health at the time of enrolment.
• Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982, Rule 14(b) was considered to understand the general rule that a disease leading to discharge is deemed to have arisen in service if not noted at the time of acceptance.
• Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982, Rule 14(d) as amended in 1996 was applied to the facts of the case, which states that for congenital, hereditary, degenerative, and constitutional diseases, entitlement to disability pension is not conceded unless it is clearly established that the course of such disease was adversely affected due to factors related to conditions of military services.
• Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pensions), 2002 was considered to understand that certain diseases may escape detection at the time of enrolment, including mental disorders.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Amended Rule 14(d): The court emphasized that the amended Rule 14(d) of the Entitlement Rules requires a clear establishment that the course of the disease was adversely affected due to factors related to conditions of military services for entitlement to disability pension in cases of congenital, hereditary, degenerative, and constitutional diseases.
• Nature of Posting and Duties: The court noted that the appellant was posted in peace stations, and his duties as a Vehicle Mechanic were not inherently stressful, thus not contributing to his mental disorder.
• Medical Board Opinion: The court respected the opinion of the Medical Board, which found that the appellant’s Schizophrenia was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, and found no infirmity in the report.
• Undetectable Nature of Mental Disorders: The court acknowledged that mental disorders like Schizophrenia can be difficult to detect during initial medical examinations, especially when there are intervals of normality.
• Distinction from Previous Cases: The court distinguished the present case from previous judgments, stating that the facts were different and the amended rules were not considered in those cases.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered alternative interpretations, such as the presumption that any disease not noted at enrollment should be attributed to service. However, it rejected this interpretation in light of the amended Rule 14(d) and the specific facts of the case. The court emphasized that a mechanical application of the presumption is not warranted, especially in cases of mental disorders.

The court’s decision was based on a careful analysis of the amended rules, the specific circumstances of the appellant’s service, and the medical opinion. The court concluded that while the provision of disability pension is a beneficial one, it cannot be applied in a way that ignores the specific requirements of the amended rules and the factual context of the case.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “The question is as to whether the person was posted in harsh and adverse conditions which led to mental imbalance.”
• “…we are unable to agree that mere fact that Schizophrenia, a mental disorder was not noticed at the time of enrolment will lead to presumption that the disease was aggravated or attributable to military service.”
• “Though, the provision of grant of disability pension is a beneficial provision but, mental disorder at the time of recruitment cannot normally be detected when a person behaves normally.”

There was no dissenting opinion in this case. The bench consisted of two judges, both of whom agreed with the final decision. The reasoning was consistent and focused on the specific facts and the applicable legal provisions.

This decision could potentially impact future cases involving disability pensions for mental disorders in the armed forces. It clarifies that the presumption of attribution to service is not automatic and that the amended rules must be strictly applied. It also highlights the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case, including the nature of the duties and the conditions of service.

The court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but reaffirmed the importance of applying the existing rules and guidelines in a balanced and context-specific manner.

Key Takeaways

• No Automatic Attribution: Schizophrenia, if not noted at the time of enrolment, is not automatically presumed to be attributable to or aggravated by military service.
• Amended Rule 14(d): The amended Rule 14(d) of the Entitlement Rules requires a clear establishment that the course of the disease was adversely affected due to factors related to conditions of military services for entitlement to disability pension in cases of congenital, hereditary, degenerative, and constitutional diseases.
• Context Matters: The nature of posting and duties are critical factors in determining whether a mental disorder is attributable to military service.
• Medical Board Opinion: The opinion of the Medical Board is given significant weight unless there is strong medical evidence to the contrary.
• Undetectable Diseases: Mental disorders can be undetectable at the time of enrolment and may not be automatically attributed to military service.

Potential Future Impact: This judgment sets a precedent for future cases involving disability pensions for mental disorders in the armed forces. It emphasizes the need for a thorough examination of the specific facts and circumstances of each case, as well as strict adherence to the amended rules and guidelines. It also clarifies that the presumption of attribution to service is not automatic and that the amended rules must be strictly applied. This could lead to a more rigorous and context-specific approach to granting disability pensions in such cases.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case. The appeal was dismissed, and the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal was upheld.

Specific Amendments Analysis

The judgment extensively discusses the amendment to Rule 14 of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982, specifically clause (d), which was amended in 1996. This amendment introduced a stricter criterion for granting disability pensions in cases of congenital, hereditary, degenerative, and constitutional diseases. The amended rule requires that for such diseases, it must be clearly established that the course of the disease was adversely affected due to factors related to conditions of military service. This amendment effectively shifted the burden of proof from the employer to the employee in these specific cases. The court emphasized that this amendment must be strictly applied, and a mere presumption of attribution to service is not sufficient to grant disability pension. The rationale behind the amendment was to prevent the misuse of disability pension benefits in cases where the disease was not caused or aggravated by military service. The implications of this amendment are significant, as it requires a more detailed and thorough examination of the facts and circumstances of each case, especially in cases of mental disorders, which are often difficult to diagnose and attribute to specific causes.

Development of Law

Ratio Decidendi: The ratio decidendi of this case is that Schizophrenia, a mental disorder, cannot be automatically presumed to be attributable to or aggravated by military service simply because it was not noted at the time of enrolment. The amended Rule 14(d) of the Entitlement Rules requires a clear establishment that the course of such disease was adversely affected due to factors related to conditions of military services for entitlement to disability pension in cases of congenital, hereditary, degenerative, and constitutional diseases. The court emphasized that a mechanical application of the presumption of attribution to service is not warranted, especially in cases of mental disorders. The nature of posting and duties, as well as the opinion of the Medical Board, are critical factors in determining whether a mental disorder is attributable to military service.

Change in Previous Positions of Law: This judgment clarifies and refines the application of the principle that a disease not noted at the time of enrolment is presumed to be attributable to military service. While previous judgments had leaned towards this presumption, this judgment emphasizes the importance of the amended Rule 14(d) and the need for a more nuanced and context-specific approach, especially in cases of mental disorders. It clarifies that the presumption of attribution to service is not automatic and that the amended rules must be strictly applied. This represents a shift from a more liberal interpretation of the rules to a more restrictive one, particularly in cases involving mental health issues.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of Narsingh Yadav, holding that his Schizophrenia was not attributable to or aggravated by his military service. The court emphasized that the amended Rule 14(d) of the Entitlement Rules requires a clear establishment that the course of the disease was adversely affected due to factors related to conditions of military services for entitlement to disability pension in cases of congenital, hereditary, degenerative, and constitutional diseases. The court also noted that the appellant’s postings were in peace stations, and his duties were not inherently stressful. The decision clarifies that the presumption of attribution to service is not automatic, particularly in cases of mental disorders, and that the specific facts and circumstances of each case must be carefully considered.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law

Child Categories:

• Disability Pension
• Armed Forces Tribunal
• Mental Health
• Schizophrenia
• Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982
• Rule 14, Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982