Mukesh Kumar Singh 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) To direct the respondents to place all medical records including medical boards of the applicant.

(b) To quash the impugned order passed vide letter dated 18.07.2017 denying disability pension to the applicant.

(c) To direct the respondents to grant disability pension to the applicant from the date of retirement i.e. 01.08.2017 in view of the above mentioned

circumstances and the settled law with regard to grant of disability pension.

(d) To grant the broad banding of disability pension from 20% to 50% from 01.08.2017 onwards for life.

(e) To direct the respondents to pay 12% interest on the arrears ofp ension and other benefits.

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

The brief facts of the case giving rise to the instant original applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the Indian Navy on 31.07.2002 and was

discharged from service on 31.07.2017 on completion of 15 years of service. The Release Medical Board (RMB) held on 17.06.2017 at Base Hospital

(BH) Delhi Cantt assessed his disability 'Seizure Disorder' @ 20% for life but opined it to be neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service

(NANA). Disability pension claim preferred by the applicant was rejected vide order dated 18.07.2017. Thereafter First Appeal against rejection of

disability pension claim was forwarded vide letter dated 05.04.2018 which is still pending. It is in this perspective that the applicant has preferred the

present O.A.

Ld. Counsel for the applicant pleaded that the applicant was fully fit at the time of enrolment and asserted that after having served for more than

three years, he was found to be suffering from 'Seizure Disorder'. The applicant's medical category was downgraded to S3H1A2P1E1 and till

retirement he served in low medical category. The Ld. Counsel for the applicant asserted that the applicant has picked up this disability due to stress

and strain of military service. Ld. Counsel for the applicant further submitted that prevailing service conditions in the military units are very demanding

and put similar stress as that of field posting. Relying upon the Hontle Apex Court judgment in the case of Dharamvir Singh vs Union of India & Ors,

reported in (2013) 7 SCC 316, Ld. Counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the disability of the applicant is principally due to stress and strain

of military service hence it should be considered as aggravated by military service.

On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondents contended that disability of the applicant has been regarded as NANA by the RMB hence he is

not entitled to disability pension. He further stressed that in the instant case onset of disability was in a peace station and there is no close time

association with stress/strain of service as associated with Field/High Altitude/Counter Insurgency Operations. Therefore, disability of the applicant

has been conceded as NANA by the RMB. He pleaded for dismissal of the O.A.

We have heard Ld. Counsel for the applicant as also Ld. Counsel for the respondents. We have also gone through the RMB and rejection order of

disability pension claim. The question before us is simple and straight i.e.-is the disability suffered by the applicant attributable to or aggravated by

military service?

On careful scrutiny of the service profile of the applicant, it is established that the applicant was serving at Kochi when the disability was first

detected and he continued to serve in the Navy in low medical category till his discharge from service.

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

& Ors reported in (2013) 7 SCC 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. The above judgment lays down that if no note of any disability or disease was made at the time of

individual's acceptance for military service, a disease which has led to an individual's discharge or death will be deemed to have arisen in service.

Since the applicant, a soldier by trade, was enrolled on 31.07.2002 and was discharged from service on 31.07.2017 therefore, he has served for 15

years and he was discharged on medical grounds.

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

disability 'Seizure Disorder' has no causal connection with military service and the onset of disability is in peace area with no close time association

with stress/strain of service in Fd/HAA/CI Ops. We feel that such a discrimination between peace posting and a posting to Field/High Altitude

Area/Counter Insurgency Operations amounts to saying that there is no stress and strain of military service in peace area, which is not the absolute

truth. Additionally, Medical Literature indicates that this disease can be triggered by an injury to the head or by certain infections. Thus considering all

issues the benefit of doubt in our opinion in this case should be extended in favour of the applicant.

In view of the law settled by the Hontle Supreme Court in the case of Dharamvir Singh (supra), the disability of the applicant should be considered

as aggravated by military service.

In view of the above, we are of the view that the applicant is entitled to 20% disability for life which shall stand rounded off to 50% disability for

life in terms of Union of India vs Ram Avtar & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 418 of 2012 decided on 10 December, 2014.

As a result of foregoing discussion, the O.A. is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The applicant shall be entitled to disability element @

20% for life to be rounded off to 50% for life w.e.f. his date of discharge. 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.

No order as to costs.

Pending applications, if any, are disposed of accordingly.

Pronounced in the open court on 11th March, 2020.