Anoop Sood vs Union Of India And Others

The applicant, Gp. Capt. Anoop Sood (Retd.), through the medium of the instant Original Application is seeking the following reliefs:

(a) To direct the respondents to place all medical records including medical boards and Release Medical Board conducted by the respondents for the

perusal of the court and the applicant as he was not provided with a copy of the same.

(b) To quash the letter dated 06.12.2017 and 15.09.2016 denying disability pension to the applicant.

(c) To direct the respondents to grant disability pension to the applicant from the date of retirement in view of the above mentioned circumstances and

settled law with regard to grant of disability pension.

(d) To grant the broad banding of disability pension as per the Larger Bench Judgment dated 01.12.2017 and U01 v Ram Avtar Civil Appeal no. 418

of 2012.

(e) To direct the respondent to pay 12% interest on the arrears of pension and other benefits.

(f) To grant such other relief appropriate to the facts and circumstances of the case as deemed fit and proper.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the applicant was commissioned in the Indian Air Force on 28.05.1983 and was retired on 30.06.2017 in

Low Medical Category on attaining the age of superannuation. At the time of retirement from service, the Release Medical Board (RMB) held at HQ

SWAC (U), AF, Gandhinagar on 12.06.2017 assessed his disabilities (i) 'PRIMARY HYPERTENSION (OLD) I-10, Z-09.0' @ 30% for life and (ii)

'BILATERAL SENSORI NEURAL HEARING LOSS (OLD)' ©15- 19%, composite 40% for life opined the disability to be neither attributable to

nor aggravated (NANA) by service. The applicant approached the respondents for grant of disability element and its rounding off but the same has

been rejected vide their letters dated 15.09.2016 and 06.12.2017. It is in this perspective that the applicant has preferred the present Original

Application.

Learned Counsel for the applicant pleaded that at the time of enrolment, the applicant was found mentally and physically fit for service in the Air

Force and there is no note in the service documents that he was suffering from any disease at the time of commission in Air Force. The diseases of

the applicant was contracted during the service, hence it is attributable to and aggravated by Military Service, He pleaded that various Benches of

Armed Forces Tribunal have granted disability pension in similar cases, as such the applicant be granted disability element as well as arrears thereof,

as such the applicant is entitled to disability element and its rounding off to 50%.

On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondents contended that disabilities of the applicant ©30% and ©20%, composite ©40% for life

have been regarded as NANA by the RMB, hence applicant is not entitled to disability element. He pleaded for dismissal of the Original Application.

We have heard Ld. Counsel for the applicant as also Ld. Counsel for the respondents. We have also gone through the Release Medical Board

proceedings as well as the records. The only question which needs to be answered is straight and simple i.e. whether the disabilities of the applicant is

attributable to or aggravated by Military Service?

The law on attributability of a disability has already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharamvir Singh Versus Union of

India & Others, reported in (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 316. In this case the Apex Court took note of the provisions of the Pensions Regulations,

Entitlement Rules and the General Rules of Guidance to Medical Officers to sum up the legal position emerging from the same.

In view of the settled position of law on attributability, we find that the RMB has denied attributability to the applicant only by endorsing that the first

disability i.e. 'PRIMARY HYPERTENSION (OLD) I-10, Z-09.0' @ 30% for life is neither attributable to nor aggravated (NANA) by service as the

onset in peace area (New Delhi) and the disability is a lifestyle disorder and not due to any infection. This reasoning of RMB is not convincing and

does not reflect the complete truth on this matter. The applicant was commissioned in Indian Air Force on 28.05.1983 and the disabilities have started

after more than 22 years of Air Force service i.e. in the month of August 2005. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the reasons given in

RMB for declaring this disease as NANA is very brief and cryptic in nature and does not adequately explain the denial of attributability. Additionally

we are of the opinion that it is not correct to say that there is no stress and strain of military service in peace areas. Therefore, benefit of doubt in

these circumstances should be extended in favour of the applicant in view of the law settled on this matter by Dharamvir Singh vs Union of India &

Ors (supra). Hence, we consider this disability of the applicant as aggravated by military service, as such the applicant is entitled for the disability

element from the date of his discharge.

Additionally, in view of Honible Supreme Court judgment in the case of Union of India and Ors Vs Ram Avtar & ors (Civil appeal No 418 of 2012

decided on 10th December 2014) we are of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to the benefit of rounding off from 30% to 50% for life from the

date of his discharge.

However considering all issues, related with second disability, we agree with the opinion of the RMB that the second disability i.e. 'BILATERAL

SENSORI NEURAL HEARING LOSS (OLD)' @15-19% is NANA.

In view of the above, the Original Application No. 694 of 2018 deserves to be partly allowed, hence partly allowed. The impugned orders dated

06.12.2017 and 15.09.2016, enclosed as Annexure A-1 (CoIly.) of the Original Application, is set aside. The disability of the applicant i.e. 'PRIMARY

HYPERTENSION (OLD) I-10, Z-09.0' is to be considered as aggravated by military service. The respondents are directed to grant disability element

to the applicant @30% for life which would stand rounded off to 50% for life from the date of discharge of the applicant i.e. 01.07.2017. The

respondents are directed to give effect to this order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Default

will invite interest @ 6% per annum till actual payment.

No order as to costs.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

Pronounced in the open court on 5th March, 2020.