Pradeep Singh Yadav vs Union Of India And Others

Counter affidavit has already been filed. Counsel for the applicant states that the applicant does not want to file rejoinder.

Arguments heard. Vide separate order, OA stands disposed of.

The applicant, having been found medically and physically fit, was commissioned in the Indian Air Force on 08.06.1984. The applicant superannuated

from service on 30.09.2017 in low medical category of A4G2 (P). Before his retirement, he was produced before the duly constituted Release

Medical Board (RMB) conducted on 10.08.2017, which assessed the applicant's disability, namely, 'PRIMARY HYPERTENSION' @ 30% for life

long, but the same was held as 'neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service (NANA)'.

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the instant matter is squarely covered by a catena of decisions of the Honble Supreme Court

including Dharamvir Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors. (2013) 7 SCC 31,6 Union of India and Ors. Vs. Rajuir 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 RMB, 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 in hand is squarely covered by the decisions referred to hereinabove.

In Dharamuir Singh's case (supra), the Honble 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 Honble Supreme Court in the matter of Dhararnvir 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 29th June, 2017 sent to the Chief of Staff of Ai my, Navy and Air Force for implementation of the orders of Honble

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.

II.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 view of the settled law on attributability, we have noticed that the Release Medical Board has denied attributability to military service to the

applicant, only on the ground that this disease has originated in peace area and not in a field/CI Ops/HAA area. We are of the opinion that the stress

and strain of the military service is related to the basic nature of military duty and it cannot be compartmentalised to field/CI Ops/HAA area only.

Thus, we are of the view that the benefit of doubt in this case goes in favour of the applicant. Therefore, in view of the law settled by the Honble

Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh's case (supra), we are of the considered opinion that this disease is to be considered as aggravated by military

service.

In 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 disability pension from the date of his superannuation @ 30% for life,

which is to be broad-banded to 50% in light of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. Vs. Ram Avtar [Civil Appeal

418 of 2012.1 decided on 10th December, 2014.

Accordingly, the respondents are directed to release the arrears within a period of six 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 annum.

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