Kanwarjit Singh vs Union Of India And Others

Present OA has been filed by the applicant seeking disability element of pension of two disabilities i.e. CAD and thereafter Hypothyroidism. So far

the disability no.2 Hypothyroidism is concerned, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is not pressing for this relief and confined his prayer

to disability CAD only.

Arguments heard.

By separate order ,OA stands disposed of.

MA 1413/2017

Vide this MA, the applicant seeks condonation of delay of 7250 days in filing the present OA. Keeping in view the averments made in the application

and finding the same to be bonafide and in the light of the decision in Union of India and others Vs. Tarsem Singh f2008 (8) SCC 6481 we allow the

instant MA and condone the delay of 7250 days in filing the OA.

M.A. No. 1413 of 2017 stands disposed off accordingly.

OA 1870/2017

The applicant, having been found medically and physically fit, was commissioned in the Indian Army on 30tr"" June 1963. On superannuation, he was

discharged from service on 31.10.1994 in Low Medical Category (LMC). In the year 1991, the applicant suffered from the heart disease IHD and

Hypothyroidism and was downgraded to LMC S1H1A1P2E1. which was subjected to periodical review. At the time of his retirement, the Release

Medical Board (RMB) assessed the applicant's disability as ""Coronary Artery Disease' (CAD) @30% for a period of two years and accepted the

same as 'aggravated by military service'. However, the claim for disability pension was rejected by the ADG PS by declaring the same to be 'neither

attributable to nor aggravated by military service' (NANA). First appeal preferred by the applicant was rejected vide letter dated 02.05.1997.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that once the Release Medical Board assessed the applicant's disability as aggravated by

military service, interference by administrative authorities is against the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court given in the matter of Ex Sapper

Mohinder Singh Vs. Union of India and Another ICivil Appeal No.164 of 1993 (arising out of SLP No. 4233 of 1992)1 decided on 15.01.1993 and

other rulings also.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the applicant is not entitled to the relief claimed since the Competent Authority

found the disability ""Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated by Military Service"".

4 Having heard learned counsel on both sides, we are of the view that the case in hand is squarely covered by the decision in Ex Sapper Mohinder

Singh (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:

xxx ... From the above narrated facts and the stand taken by the parties before us, the controversy that falls for determination by us is in a

very narrow compass viz., whether the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) has any jurisdiction to sit over the opinion of the

experts (Medical Board) while dealing with the case of grant of disability pension, in regard to the percentage of the disability pension, or

not. In the present case, it is nowhere stated that the petitioner was subjected to any higher Medical Board before the Chief Controller of

Defence Accounts (Pension) decided to decline the disability pension to the petitioner. We are unable to see as to how the accounts branch

dealing with the pension can sit over the judgment of the experts in the medical line without making any reference to a detailed or higher

Medical Board which can be constituted under the relevant instructions and rules by the Director General of Army Medical Corps.

Subsequent to this, the Integrated HQ of MoD (Army) issued letter dated 30.11.2016, which states, ""These alterations in the findings of IMB/RMB

by MAP (PCDA (P)) without having physical examined the individual, do not stand to the scrutiny of law and in numerous judgments, Hon'ble

Supreme Court has ruled that the Medical Board which has physically examined should be given due weightage, value and credence."" It further asks

Command Headquarters to instruct all Record Offices under their control to withdraw unconditionally from such cases, notwithstanding the stage

they may have reached and such files be processed for sanction"".

in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ex Sapper Mohinder Singh (Supra), we are satisfied that the claim for disability pension

was wrongly interfered with by the Administrative Authority. As per the findings of Release Medical Board, the applicant's disability was held

aggravated by physical & mental stress and strain of military service and the applicant is, therefore, entitled for disability pension.

Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the claim of the applicant for disability pension is set aside. So far as entitlement of applicant to disability

element of pension from the date of his retirement, i.e., 31.10.1994 @ 30% for two years, the same has now become barred by time. Therefore, same

cannot be granted. The respondents are, however, directed to refer the applicant's case to Review Medical Board for reassessing the medical

condition of the applicant for further entitlement of disability pension, if any, within a period of three months. Subject to the decision of Review

Medical Board, in case the applicant is found to be suffering from the same disability, the arrears for past three years from the date of filing of the OA

(07112017) be paid to the applicant at 30% which be broad banded to 50% within a period of four months thereafter, failing which arrears shall carry

interest @ 6% per annum.

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