Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2019) 08 AFT CK 0005

K K Prasad vs Union Of India And Others

Armed Forces Tribunal · Decided on 1 August 2019

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sunita Gupta, J · P. Murugesan, Member (A)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Original Application No. 1808 Of 2018, Miscellaneous Application No. 1190 Of 2019, 2000 Of 2020

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

39 paragraphs · 513 words
1.

Casual Relationship of the disability with service conditions or otherwise,,,,

Disability,"Attributable to service

Y/N","Aggravated by Military

service (Y/N)","Not connected with

service (Y/N)","Reasons/cause/specific

conditions and period in

service.

DIABETES

MELLITUS TYPE",No,Yes,No,"Onset of ID was in

July 2005 at Bangalore

within one year of

being posted out of 163

IBSC Feld). Hence

conceded as

aggravated due to

physical stress and

strain of military

service vide Para 26

Chap VI GMO 21008

amended.

Further it was alleged that the said observation is at variance with the medical opinion as enunciated at para 2 of Part-II order. It also states that the,,,,

Key Location Point of 163 Inf Bde Signal Company is at Udhampur which is a peace location and accordingly records of MS Branch shows that the,,,,

posting of the applicant was at peace station. However, the officer served in field area as indicated in the Part II order and Annual Medical Exam",,,,

Report. Moreover, once the Release Medical Board opined that the disability has aggravated by military service, the competent authority could not",,,,

have differed with the opinion of the Medical Board, only on the ground that the disability occurred in the peace area.",,,,

7.

In this regard, the Hontle Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors. (2013) 7 SCC 31 6has observed that irrespective of the",,,,

fact that whether the individual is posted in peace area or at field area, in case the disability was not detected during the medical examination when a",,,,

person is selected for military service, the disability is presumed to be sustained during the course of the military service and attributable to service",,,,

conditions. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that when the applicant entered in military service, he was not suffering from any disease and",,,,

the disability in question was detected/sustained only during the course of military service.,,,,

8.

Accordingly, the applicant's disease -Diabetes Mellitus Type II"", has to be held as aggravated/attributable to military service in accordance with",,,,

Para 51 of Amendment to Chapter VI & VII of Guide to Medical Officers issued by Ministry of Defence.,,,,

9.

In view of the foregoing, we hereby set aside the impugned order dated 09.11.2015 issued by the Respondents rejecting the claim of the applicant",,,,

for disability pension and hold that he is entitled to disability element of disability pension @ 20% for life, which is to be broad-banded to 50% for life 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.",,,,

10.

The applicant's entitlement to arrears is however restricted to three years prior to the date of filing of the application.,,,,

11.

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 eight per cent per annum till the actual date of payment.,,,,

12.

The 0.A. stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.,,,,