Balaram Panda vs Union Of India And Others

Being aggrieved by denial of disability pension, the applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces

Tribunal Act, 2007 wherein he has sought the following reliefs:-

(a) Quash and set aside the impugned letter No. Air HQ/99798/1/790424/DAV/DP/CC dated 14.09.2016. And/or

(b) Direct respondents to treat the disabilities of the applicant assessed @ 30% as attributable to/or aggravated by military service and grant him

disability pension, rounding off to 50% in terms of Govt of India, Min of Defence letter No 1(2)/97/D(Pen-C) dated 31.01.2001 and law settled by

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No 418/2012 titled U01 & Ors V. Ram Avtar vide judgement dated 10.12.2014.

(c) Direct respondents to pay the due arrears of disability pension with interest @12% p.a from the date of discharge with all the consequential

benefits.

(d) Any other relief which the Hon 'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case.

Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 16.07.1996 and was discharged from service on 31.07.2016 in

low medical category. The Release Medical Board (RMB) held at 24 Equipment Depot, IAF on 05.11.2015 assessed his disabilities, viz., (i) 'Primary

Hypertension (01d) (ICD No. I-10.0, Z 09.0)' ©30%, and (ii) `Dyslipidemia (Old) (ICD No. E-78.0,Z-09.0)' @1-5% and composite assessment @

30% for life. However, the RMB opined that the diseases of the applicant were neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service (NANA).

The applicant's claim for grant of disability pension was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 14.09.2016. Hence the instant Original

Application.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was medically fit when he was enrolled in Air Force service and any disability not

recorded at the time of enrolment should be presumed to have been caused subsequently. The action of the respondents in denying disability pension

to the applicant is illegal. In this regard, he relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and others,

(2013) 7 SCC 316 and Union of India & Another Versus Rajbir Singh (Civil Appeal No. 2904 of 2011, date of decision 13.02.2015) and submitted that

for the purpose of determining attributability of the disease to military service, what is material is whether the disability was detected at the time of

enrolment and if no disability was detected at that time, then it is to be presumed that the disability arose while in service, therefore, the disability of the

applicant is to be considered attributable to or aggravated by service and he is entitled to get disability pension @30% and the same is to be broad

banded to 50%.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that though the RMB had assessed composite disability of the applicant @30%, it

has opined that the disability is NANA because it originated in modified field area and has no association with HAA/Field/CI Ops. As such his claim

for disability pension has rightly been rejected by the respondents. He pleaded for dismissal of the OA.

Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records, the only question that needs to be answered is, whether the disability

of the applicant is attributable to or aggravated by military service?

We have noted that the only reason for which the first disability le., 'Primary Hypertension' has been opined as NANA by the RMB is that the

disease has originated in a modified field area. The disability was first detected in March 2011 whereas the applicant was enrolled in Air Force on

16.07.1996 i.e. after about more than 15 years of service. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the reasons given in RMB for declaring the

disease as NANA is very brief and cryptic in nature and does not meet the ends of justice. We are of the opinion that the stress and strain of military

service can't be compartmentalised only to HAA/field/CI Ops areas, and the very nature of military duty has its inherent stress and strain. Thus even

military duties in peace area have their own share of stress and strain of military service. In view of the above mentioned aspects, we would like to

extend the benefit of doubt in favour of the applicant. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the disability 'Primary Hypertension (01d)' is to

be considered as aggravated by military service in line with the law settled on this matter by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dharamvir Singh

(supra). Additionally, the applicant will also be eligible for the benefit of rounding off to 50% for life with effect from the date of discharge, in terms of

the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Ram Avtar (Civil Appeal No 418 of 2012 dated 10.12.2014).

After considering all issues related to the second disease, ie., `Dyslipidemia (Old), we are in the agreement with the opinion of the RMB and

consider this disease as NANA.

Resultantly, the O.A. is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The applicant's first disability 'Primary Hypertension (Old)' is to be considered

as aggravated by military service and his disability element of pension is to be rounded off from 30% to 50% for life from the date of discharge, ie

01.08.2016. Ordered accordingly. To be implemented by the respondents within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Default

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

No order as to costs.

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

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