Hay Ranjan Singh vs Union Of India And Others

Counsel for the respondents submits that no fresh counter affidavit is required to be filed and he adopts the counter affidavit which was filed earlier

Counsel for the applicant submits that present case is squarely covered by a number of judgments which is not disputed by counsel for the

respondents.

That being so. vide separate order. OA stands disposed off.

Having been found medically and physically fit the applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army on 31.03 1986 On 14.10 1999. the applicant while

undergoingAnnual Medical Examination was diagnosed with Primary Hypertension and downgraded to lower medical category. The applicant was

compulsorily released from service on 01 07 2008 in view of Army Headquarters instructions for management of Permanent Low Medical Category

persons below officers rank in the Army dated 12.04.2007 in S1H1A1P2E1 with 30% disability for life.

All similarly situated persons approached the Hon ble Delhi High Court and finally Hon.ble Supreme Court for their illegal discharge. Honble

Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6587 of 2008- Union of India and others versus Naib Subedar Rajpal Singh decided on 07.11 2008 turned down the

decision of Army Headquarters and all the persons were reca led who wanted to rejoin Applicant also rejoined without any break in service.

The applicant was released from service after completion of his term of engagement on 31 05.2010 in low medical category. Before proceeding on

discharge. the applicant was subjected to Release Medical Board (RMB). The Release Medical Board found that the applicant was suffering from

disability namely ""PRIMARY HYPERTENSION- assessed at 30% for life treating it as neither attributable to nor aggravated by service. 1st and 2nd

appeal preferred by the applicant were rejected vide orders dated 16.10.2012 and 09.11.2015 respectively.

Learned counsel for the applicant contended 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 316. Union of India and Ors Vs. Rajvir Singh (2015) 12 SCC 264 and Union of

India and Ors Vs. Angad Singh Titaria, (2015) 12 SCC 257. Further. the claim of the applicant is also supported by relevant rules.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the applicant is not entitled to the relief claimed since the Release Medical Board.

being an Expert Body, found the disability -Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated by Service'.

Having heard learned counsel on both sides we are of the view that the case on hand is squarely covered by the decisions referred to herein above.

In Dharamvir Singh (supra) the Hon ble Supreme Court held that any disability sustained during the course of Military Service will be attributed to

service conditions unless the disability was such that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination before a person is selected for

Defence Service and furthermore before arriving at a conclusion the Release Medical Board should have assigned reasons. in writing, that the

disability was not due to Military Service. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that when the applicant entered into service, he was not suffering

from any disease and that the disability in question was detected/sustained only during the course of his Military Service.

The matter for implementation of orders of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dharamvir 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 29'11 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 an

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 the 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 pension from the date of his retirement at the rate of 30% for life,

which is to be broad banded to 50 per cent in the light of the judgment of the Hontle Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors Vs Ram Avtar decided

on 10th December, 2014.

In view of the fact that there is delay on the part of the applicant in approaching the Tribunal, arrears are restricted to three years prior to the filing

of the OA which was filed on 29 11.2018.

The respondents are directed to release the arrears within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the

arrears shah carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum.

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