Pradeep 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) Setting aside of impugned order dated 30 Aug 2016,

(b) Respondents be directed to grant 75% of disability element of pension to the Applicant as per Broad band policy w.e.f 01 Nov 2016 with

12% interest per annum for all the disabilities assessed with composite disability @ 60%.

(c) Grant any other/further relief

Briefly stated the applicant was commissioned in the Indian Air Force (IAF) on 04.06.1982 and superannuated w.e.f. 31.10.2016 in low medical

category `A4G4 (P)' due to (i) Primary Hypertension (old) I10,Z09.0 (ii) Obesity (Old) E66, Z09.0 (iii) DM Type-2 (Old) ICD E11, Z09.0 and (iv)

CAD-CSA-DCD (P/OPCABX3) (Old) 25.4 Z09.0. The RMB of the applicant was held in the month of June 2016 which had assessed his disabilities

@ 30%, 1-5%, 20% and 30% for life respectively neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service (NANA). Disability pension claim was

rejected vide order dated 30.08.2016 and thereafter first appeal submitted by the applicant on 07.09.2016 seems to has not been decided. It is in this

perspective that this O.A. has been filed.

Ld. Counsel for the applicant pleaded that the applicant was commissioned in the IAF in medically and physically fit condition. It was further

pleaded that a member is to be presumed in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service if there is no note or record to the contrary at

the time of entry. In the event of his subsequently being discharged from service/superannuated in low medical category, any deterioration in his health

is to be presumed due to service conditions. He pleaded that the applicant was under stress and strains due to rigors of service conditions which may

have led to occurrence of the disabilities. The Ld. Counsel further pleaded that since the applicant had to serve in the IAF at various hazardous places

in field and remote areas therefore the disabilities had occurred to the applicant. He pleaded for grant of disability pension to the applicant,

On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondents submitted that since the RMB has opined the disabilities as NANA, the applicant is not entitled

to disability pension. He further submitted that the applicant is not entitled to disability pension in terms of para 423 (c) of Regulations of Medical

Services of the Armed Forces 2010 which stipulates that if a disease/disability arose due to service conditions and it has been held either attributable

to or aggravated by military service by the RMB then an incumbent is entitled to disability pension but in the instant case all the disabilities of the

applicant are held as NANA by the RMB. He pleaded the O.A. to be dismissed.

We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

We have noted that applicant's first and second disabilities i.e. Obesity and Primary Hypertension have originated simultaneously in November

1994. His third and fourth disabilities have followed thereafter. When a soldier is put in 'OBESITY' category, it means that he is at least 30 and above

to his acceptable Body Mass Index (BMI). BMI is defined as a person's weight with respect to his height. Obesity also reflects excessive fat

accumulation in the body and is known to make a person more vulnerable to various diseases. This also clearly points out that the officer has been in

overweight category i.e. BMI between 25 & 29.9 for long before being declared obese. It also indicates that the officer has failed to control his

obesity from November 1994 till he retired in October 2016. In the above situation we feel that a soldier has special responsibility to keep himself fully

fit. Being overweight to the extent of being placed in lower medical category of 'OBESITY' for 20 years amounts to being negligent towards own

health and also amounts to an invitation to life style disease like 'Hypertension', 'Diabetes' and 'heart disease'. On careful perusal of the medical

documents and material placed on record, it has been observed that the applicant was detected to be overweight i.e. BMI 25-29.9 during his Annual

Medical Examination in March 1989 and was advised to reduce his weight by graded exercises and dietary restriction. He was also continuously

advised to reduce his weight in subsequent Annual Medical Examinations. Despite the above, the applicant was found 50% more than ideal weight in

November 1994 during Annual Medical Examination conducted at AF Station, Thane (Mumbai) Further, para 2 of the RMB mentions that the

disabilities 'Primary Hypertension' and 'Obesity' were detected in November 1994 i.e. when the applicant was more than 50% over and above his

ideal weight. The fourth disability 'CAD-CSA-DVD (P/OPCABx3') originated in March 2014, while the applicant was at home after retirement. It

needs to be clarified that the applicant had retired on 31.10,2013 at the age of 54 years as a time scale Gp Capt and was later re-instated in service in

February 2015 due to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors vs Gp Capt Atui Shukla, Civil Appeal No.7219 of

2013 decided on 24.09.2014 clarifying the retirement age of Time Scale Gp Capt as 57 years of age. In this situation he suffered with CAD in March

2014 in the intervening period while at home. It is thus obvious that the applicant has been under medical advice since 1989 to reduce weight but he

failed to do so and remained in low medical category for excessive weight i.e. obesity from 1994 till his final retirement in 2016. Thus in these

circumstances we are in no position to give any benefit of doubt to the applicant and we agree with the opinion of the RMB that all diseases of the

applicant are NANA.

Additionally, this Tribunal while dealing with disability pension in disabilities 'Obesity and Hypertension' in O.A. No. 1656/2019, Ex-HFO Gyanendra

Singh (supra) has dismissed the case on merit which was also upheld by the Hontle Supreme Court in Civil Diary No 21017/2019 decided on

08.07.2019.

In view of the above, since the applicant's disabilities have been held to be NANA by the RMB with cogent reasons, we are not inclined to

interfere with the opinion of the RMB.

Therefore we do not find any merit in the O.A. and accordingly the same is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

Pending applications, if any, are disposed of accordingly.

Pronounced in the open court on 6th March, 2020.