Pramod Kumar Singh vs Union Of India And Others

M.A. No. 638/2017

Vide this M.A., the applicant seeks condonation of delay of 611 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 611 days in filing the OA.

M.A. No. 638 of 2017 stands disposed of accordingly.

O.A. No. 795/2017

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:-

(i) To direct the respondents to grant the disability pension at 50% for life as per rules, after broadbanding from 15-19% wef the date of

discharge/Medically Boarded out from the service i.e. 01 Oct 2010 alongwith fresh issuance of PPO.

(ii) To direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefits related to his disability wef the date of discharge/Medically Boarded out

from the service i.e. 01 Oct 2010.

(iii) Grant of interest @ % as deems fit by the Honible Court on the amount falls due.

(iv) To pass any other appropriate Order/Orders as deemed fit keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case in the interest

of natural justice and equality.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army on 02.09.1982 and was discharged from service on

30.09.2010 in Low Medical Category. Prior to discharge his Release Medical Board (RMB) was conducted which had assessed his disability Bilateral

SNHL with profound SNHL (R) and Mild SNHL (L) @ 50% for life and opined it to be neither attributable to nor aggravated (NANA) by military

service. Disability pension claim was rejected vide order dated 26.02.2011. First and Second Appeals against rejection of disability pension were

rejected vide orders dated 31.01.2012 and 09.02.2015 respectively. The applicant is however in receipt of service pension. It is in this perspective that

the applicant has preferred the present Original Application for grant of disability pension.

Learned Counsel for the applicant pleaded that at the time of enrolment, the applicant was found mentally and physically fit for service in the Army

and there is no note in his service documents that he was suffering from any disease at the time of enrolment in Army. The disease of the applicant

was contacted during the service, hence it is attributable to and aggravated by Military Service. He pleaded that various Benches of Armed Forces

Tribunal have granted disability pension in similar cases, as such the applicant be granted disability pension as well as arrears thereof, and the applicant

is entitled to disability pension and its rounding off to the tune of 50%. The Ld. Counsel for the applicant has relied upon the case of Union of India &

Anr vs Rajbir Singh, Civil Appeal No 2904 of 2011 decided on 13.02.2015, Dharamvir Singh vs Union of India & Anr, JT (2009) 12 SC 180 and

pleaded the disability pension to be granted to the applicant with its rounding off to the tune of 50%.

On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondents contended that the aforesaid disability of the applicant has been regarded as NANA by the

RMB, hence the applicant is not entitled to disability pension. He pleaded for dismissal of the Original Application.

We have heard Ld. Counsel for the applicant as also Ld. Counsel for the respondents. We have also gone through the Re-Categorization Medical

Board, Release Medical Board and Second Appeal Medical Board proceedings as well as the records.

The Re-categorization Medical Board held on 05.06.2010 has assessed the disability percentage © 15- 19% for two years whereas the Release

Medical Board (RMB) held on 28.09.2010 i.e. 03 months after recategorization medical board has assessed the disability percentage © 50% for life

and the Second Appeal Medical Board held on 19.05.2014 after four years of discharge from service does not contain applicant's disability

percentage.

Additionally, the RMB has assessed the disability factor as NANA but the Appeal Medical Board has mentioned the disability as 'could be

attributable to service.'

Thus keeping in view of the conflicting scenario, i.e., jump of disability percentage from 15-19% to 50% in three months between categorisation

medical board (05.06.2010) and RMB (28.09.2010) and lack of clarity on the percentage of disability in Appeal Medical Board (19.05.2014), we direct

that an Appeal Medical Board be conducted afresh DENOVO to decide future entitlement of disability pension to the applicant. The Appeal Medical

Board must comment clearly on percentage of disability and attributability aspect.

In view of the above, O.A. No 795 of 2017 is disposed of with aforesaid observations.

No order as to costs.

Pending applications, if any, are disposed of accordingly.

Pronounced in the open court on 13th March, 2020.