Baljeet Singh vs Union Of India And Others

M.A. No. 481 of 2019:

Vide this application, the applicant seeks condonation of delay of 21 days in filing M.A. No. 480 of 2019 seeking condonation of delay in filing the

OA. In view of the averments made in the application, delay is allowed. M.A. No. 481 of 2019 stands disposed of accordingly.

M.A. No. 2462 of 2019:

Vide this application, respondents seek condonation of 52 days' delay in filing affidavit in terms of order dated 15.07.2019. In view of the averments

made in the application, delay is allowed. M.A. No. 2462 of 2019 stands disposed of.

O.A. No. 607/2014 with MA 480/2019:

Vide separate order pronounced today, OA along with MA stands disposed of.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on the point of delay.

In view of the averments made in the MA and finding the same to be bonafide, we condone the delay in filing the OA.

MA is allowed.

By way of the present application filed under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the applicant has prayed for following relief:

(i) issue directions to the respondents to release 50% disability pension in favour of the applicant w.e.f date of discharge with 12% interest thereupon;

(ii) summon the invaliding Medical Board Proceedings before the Court and direct to supply the same to the applicant;

(iii) impose heavy costs on the officer concerned for not supplying the documents under Right to

(iv) award cost of the petition in favour of the applicant;

(v) pass any other relief (s) which this Honble Tribunal may deem appropriate, just and proper in the interest of justice and in the facts and

circumstances of the case.

The brief facts of this case are that the applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army on 27.12.1983 and was invalided out from service on 13.07.2002

for disease 'Depression (Nos) 311 V 67'. Before his invalidation, he was produced before the duly constituted Invaliding Medical Board (IMB)

conducted on 13.07.2002 which assessed the applicant's disability, namely, 'Depression' @ 20% for life, but the same was held as 'neither attributable

to nor aggravated by military service (NANA)'.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was enrolled in a fully fit state and his subsequent disease which arose after 19 years

of service and after a foreign posting in Africa should be considered as attributable to military service. He further stated that the instant matter is

squarely covered by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court including Dharamvir Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors.(2013) 7 SCC 31,6

Union of India and Ors.Vs. Ralvir Singh (2015) 12 SCC 26 4and Union of India and Ors Vs.Angad Singh Titaria(2015) 12 SCC 25.7 He pleaded for

grant of disability pension to the applicant.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the applicant is not entitled to the relief claimed since the 1MB, being an Expert

Body, found the disability as ""Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated by Military Service"" and not connected to military service. He pleaded for OA

to be dismissed.

We have noted that the matter for implementation of orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dharamuir Singh (supra) in respect of

Armed Forces Personnel in NANA cases was taken up with the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance for consideration. Accordingly,

Ministry of Defence by their letter dated 29th June, 2017 sent to the Chief of Staff of Army, Navy and Air Force for implementation of the orders of

Hon'ble Supreme Court, has laid down the following essential parameters for allowing disability pension:

I. The question whether a disability is attributable or aggravated by military service is to be determined under ""Entitlement Rules for

Casualty Pensionary Awards 1982.

II. A member is to be presumed in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service if there is no note or record at the time of

entrance. In the event of his subsequently being discharged from service on medical grounds any deterioration in his health is to be

presumed due to service.

III. If no note of any disability or disease was made at the time of individual's acceptance for military service, a disease which has laid to in

individual's discharge or death will be deemed to have arisen in the service.

IV. If medical opinion holds that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior to the acceptance for service and

that disease will not be deemed to have arisen during service, the medical board is required to state the reasons.

In view of the above mentioned guidelines, we have noted that IMB has denied attributability of disability of the applicant to military service by a

simple and cryptic sentence ""not connected to service"". We have also noted that in the reports by specialist Psychiatric, it is mentioned that the

applicant had once visited casual sex workers during his UN peace keeping posting, in `SEORRA LEON' Africa. Thereafter he developed a fear that

he could be suffering from AIDS. However, all his medical check ups confirmed that he is not having AIDS and is in normal health. However,

considering his state of depression, he was recommended to be invalided out of service.

After considering all issues involved in this case, we are of the opinion that depression can be triggered by multiple reasons in a human body and in

most cases exact cause of depression remains unknown. In this case, to jump to a conclusion that because the applicant went to visit sex workers

once in Africa, therefore he has gone into ,depression will not be a realistic conclusion. In any case the Specialist Psychiatric officer is not suggesting

this visit as the primary cause of his depression. Thus, considering all issues including the education level and background of applicant and the fact that

onset of depression in the applicant has taken place after a foreign posting involving CI ops i.e UN peace keeping force in Africa, we are of the

opinion that benefit of doubt should be given to applicant and his disability ""ANXIETY' should be considered as aggravated by military service in view

of the law settled by Dharamvir Singh (Supra).

In light of the preceding paragraphs and essential parameters given aforesaid, we hereby set aside the impugned order rejecting the claim of the

applicant for disability pension and hold that he is entitled to disability element of disability pension from the date of his invalidation @ 20% for life,

which is to be broad-banded to 50% for life, in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. Vs. Ram Avtar[Civil

Appeal 418 of 2012] decided on 10th December, 2014. However, since the applicant has approached this Tribunal late, his arrears of disability

element will be restricted to 3 years before filing this OA. The date of filing this OA is 21.11.2014.

Accordingly, the respondents are directed to release the arrears within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,

failing which, the arrears shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

The OA stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.

Pronounced in open Court on this 31st day of January 2020.