Narendra Kumar vs Union Of India And Others

Having been found medically and physically fit, the applicant was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 06 11 1997 and was discharged from service

on completion of engagement on 30.11.2017. Before proceeding on discharge, the applicant was diagnosed/detected a case of Primary Hypertension

(OLD) Eli, Z09 on Jan. 2013, The Medical Board of applicant held on 30.03.2017 and was categorized in low medical category A4 G4(P) and

applicant was prescribed with medicines accordingly. The Release Medical Board of applicant was conducted on 30.03.2017 with disability Primary

Hypertension (OLD) El 1. Z09 with 30% disablement for long life but the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by Air Force Service

with the reason that the disability Primary Hypertension (OLD) El 1 , Z09 with 30% disablement for life not connected with Military Service and

placed in low medical category A4G4(P), composite @ 30%.

The applicant received letter dated 08 02 2018 from the respondents about the rejection of disability pension claim on the basis of RMB held on

30.03.2017. The applicant made a first appeal/representations dated 01.08.2018 and subsequently on 10.12.2018 to the respondents to consider the

disability pension claim of applicant but replies of both the appeals/representations is still awaited,

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 31,6 Union of India and Ors. Vs Rajvir Singh (2015) 12 SCC 26 4and 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 291' June, 2017 sent to the Chief of Staff of Army. Navy and Air Force for implementation of the orders of Hontle

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 composite 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.

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 shall 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.

Pending MA, if any, shall also stands disposed off.