Can a Medical Board's opinion on attributability be substituted merely because another view is possible?

Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 — Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 2008 — r.7 proviso — Pension Regulations for Army, 1961 — Disability pension — Promulgation — Onus of proof — Entitlement Rules, 2008 — Promulgation — Validity not demonstrated — Held: The Entitlement Rules, 2008 cannot be treated as validly promulgated where the Union fails to demonstrate their source, time and method of issuance. The Raksha Mantri Report, 2015 found them issued without Cabinet or DoPPW approval. (¶22, 24) Entitlement Rules, 1982 and 2008 — Onus, causal connection — Substantially identical — Held further: Though the Entitlement Rules, 2008 withdraw the presumption of attributability at entry, they do not dismantle the claimant-protective structure of the 1982 Rules on causal connection, onus of proof and aggravation. The primary burden continues to rest on the employer. (¶29, 30, 31) Entitlement Rules, 2008 — r.7 proviso — Onus after fifteen years — Held further: The sole qualification lies in the proviso to Rule 7 of the Entitlement Rules, 2008. It shifts the onus of proving entitlement onto the claimant where the claim is made more than fifteen years after discharge, invalidment or release. (¶33, 35) Medical Board opinion — Deference — Appeals dismissed on delay and merits — Held further: A Medical Board's opinion on attributability deserves due weight and is not to be substituted merely because another view is possible. On these findings, the batch of appeals stood dismissed on delay and merits, with no order as to costs. (¶39, 40, 41)