Parmod Kumar vs Union Of India And Others

Counter affidavit as well as rejoinder have been filed.

Arguments heard.

Vide separate order, OA stands disposed off.

Having been found medically and physically fit at the time of his recruitment medical board, the applicant, who was enrolled in the Indian Army on

08.08.1991, was discharged from service after 24 years of service on 31.08.2015 in low medical category S1H1A1P2(P) El. The Release Medical

Board held at the time of retirement found the applicant was sufferingfromthe disability for Coronary Artery Disease assessed @ 30% for life but did

not grant disability pension as RMB held that the said disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated (NANA) by service.

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 26.4 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 Military 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. 5. 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 1June. 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 aggravatedbymilitaryserviceistobe determined under ""Entitlement Rules for

Casualty Pensionary Awards 1982.

II. A member is to be presumed in sound physical and mental condition upon entering se01 rvice 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.

We also find that heart diseases on the lines of Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) are covered by the judgment dated 15.02.2015 of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the Rajvir Singh case (supra).

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 fifty per cent in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. Vs. Ram Avtar

decided on 10''' December, 2014.

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 eight per cent per annum.

Since the applicant has come to this Tribunal after considerable delay, hence the arrears are restricted to three years prior to the date of filing of the

application (i.e. 01 02.2019).

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