AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.A. No. 580/2017
Vide this M.A., the applicant seeks condonation of delay of 1556 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 M.A. and condone the delay of 1556 days in filing the OA.
M.A. No. 580 of 2017 stands disposed of accordingly.
O.A. 687/2017
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) Quash and set aside the impugned letters dated 27 Sep 16.
(b) Direct respondents to grant of disability pension @ 50% after rounding off from 20% for life as recommended by RMB to the applicant with
effect from 01 Feb 2010 i.e. the date of discharge from service with interest@12% p.a. till final payment is made.
(c) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case.
The brief facts of the case giving rise to the instant original application are that the applicant was enrolled in the Indian Navy on 06.01.1990 and
superannuated on 31.01.2010 on completion of tenure of engagement. The Release Medical Board (RMB) held on 13.10.2009 at Base Hospital, Delhi
Cantt assessed his disabilities '(i) Greater Tubersity (R) Humerus ICD No 592.6 V-28 © 1-5% for life (ii) Obesity E-66.0 @ Nil% for life and (iii)
Cortical Venous Thrombosis I 63.6 @ 11-14% for life and composite assessment for all the disabilities was assessed © 20% for life but opined the
disabilities to be neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service (NANA). The documents reveal that neither there is a record of rejection of
disability pension claim nor any appeal was submitted by the applicant. Two legal notices dated 18.04.2016 and 22.12.2016 were sent by Mr. Praveen
Kumar, Advocate, Counsel for the applicant for grant of disability pension, reply of which has not been filed on record. It is in this perspective that the
applicant has preferred the present O.A.
Ld. Counsel for the applicant pleaded that the applicant was fully fit at the time of enrolment and asserted that having served for more than 20
years; he was discharged from service in low medical category. The Ld. Counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant has picked up
the above disabilities due to stress and strain of Army service.
Ld. Counsel for the applicant further submitted that prevailing service conditions in the military units are very demanding and put similar stress as
that of field posting. Relying upon the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Dharamvir Singh vs Union of India & Ors, reported in (2013) 7
SCC 316, Ld. Counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the disabilities of the applicant are principally due to stress and strain of military
service as the disabilities were suffered by the applicant at the fag end of his service and should be considered as aggravated by military service.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondents contended that disability of the applicant has been regarded as NANA by the RMB hence he is
not entitled to disability pension. He further stressed that in the instant case onset of disability was in a peace station and there is no close time
association with stress/strain of service as associated with Field/High Altitude/Counter Insurgency Operations. Therefore, disability of the applicant
has been conceded as NANA by the RMB. He pleaded for dismissal of the O.A.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for the applicant as also Ld. Counsel for the respondents. We have also gone through the RMB.
On perusal it is evident that there are three disabilities pertaining to the applicant as mentioned in the RMB. We would like to take all the disabilities
one by one. Firstly, the disability 'obesity' which is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service (NANA) was detected in the month of July
2009 and disability percentage is assessed © Nil%. Therefore the applicant is not entitled to disability pension for this disability. Secondly, the
disability 'Greater Tubersity (Rt) Numerous' @ 1-5% for life, which is NANA by the RMB, was caused due to an accident while the applicant was
travelling by his personal motor cycle. We have perused the injury report, signed by the applicant and the Commanding Officer (CO). It is clear from
the injury report that the Sailor was not on duty and the accident has no causal connection with military duty. Thirdly, the disability 'Cortical Venous
Thrombosis' was detected on 20.03.2006 and the RMB has assessed the disability @ 11-14% for life and NANA.
As per Medical Literature 'Cortical Venous Thrombosis' is also known as 'Superficial Cerebral Vein Thrombosis'. This disease is related to blood
clot formation in the veins of the head and manifests itself through headache etc. It is related to blood clotting pattern of an individual and is treated by
anticoagulants to remove the clot. In this case the disability after treatment was mild i.e. 11-14%. We have noted that all the three disabilities of the
applicant are below 20% and are opined to be NANA by the RMB. Additionally we have noted that the applicant was discharged from service on
completion of his period of engagement. Hence we are of the opinion that in view of above mentioned facts, the applicant could not make out a case
for his entitlement to disability pension and therefore O.A. has no merit, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Pending applications, if any, are disposed of accordingly.
Pronounced in the open court on 11th March, 2020.