T.I. Punnen vs Union Of India And Others

Arguments heard.

Vide separate order, OA stands disposed off.

MA 1020/2019

Vide this MA. the applicant seeks condonation of delay of 5236 days in filing the present OA. Keeping in view the averments made in the application

and finding the same to be bonafide and in the light of the decision in Union of India and others Vs. Tarsem Singh [2008 (8) SCC 648.] we allow the

instant MA and condone the delay of 5236 days in filing the OA

2 M.A. No. 1020 of 2019 stands disposed of accordingly.

OA 461/2019

Having been found medically and physically fit, the applicant was commissioned in Indian Navy on 24.12.1967 and was discharged from service on

30.04.2003. Before proceeding on discharge, the applicant was subjected to Release Medical Board (RMB). The Release Medical Board found that

the applicant was suffering from disabilities namely. ID (I) ""CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE (POST PCTA + STENT TO LAD) (15-19%) and

ID (ii) DIABETES MELLITUS (20%)"", assessed composite disability @ 40% for two years, however, the disability was held neither attributable to

nor aggravated by service.

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

including Dharanwir 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

6 Having heard learned counsel for both sides, we are of the view that the case in hand is squarely covered by the decisions referred to herein above.

In Dharamvir Singh's case (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 Hontle 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 its letter dated 29th June, 2017 sent to the Chief of Staff of Army, 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.

III. If no note of any disability or disease was made at the time of individuals 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 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 40%, which is to

be broad banded to 50% for life in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. Vs. Ram Avtar decided on 10tr

December, 2014

The Release Medical Board had assessed the duration of degree of disablement as two years. However, recently Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil

Appeal No. 5970 of 2019-Commander Rakesh Pande versus Union of India and others decided on 281"" November. 2019 referring to the letter dated

07.02.2001 issued by the Government of India observed that as per this letter, no periodical reviews by the Resurvey Medical Boardshall beheld

forreassessment of reassessment of disabilities. In case of disabilities agitated as being of permanent nature, the decision once arrived at will be for

life unless the individual himself requests for a review. In that case, the applicant was afflicted with disease which was of permanent nature and

therefore, he was held entitled to disability pension for his life which cannot be restricted for a period of 5 years.

In the instant case, as per the Resurvey Medical Board, the disability was found to be permanent, therefore. in view of this judgment. the applicant

is entitled for disability element of pension for life.

In view of the fact that there is delay on the part of the applicant in approaching the Tribunal, arrears are restricted to three years prior to the filing

of the OA which was filed on 25.03.2019.

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 six per cent per annum

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