Surender Singh Rana vs Union Of India And Others

The applicant is a commissioned officer of the Indian Army, who had proceeded on voluntary retirement with effect from 18th June, 1979. The

applicant is aggrieved due to denial of disability pension by the respondents. He has prayed for the following reliefs:

a) Direct the respondents to produce all medical records in respect of the applicant including the proceedings of his Release Medical Board and grant

him disability pension with the benefit of rounding off with effect from the date of his retirement according to his RMB proceedings.

b) Direct respondents to grant him disability pension with the benefit of rounding off with effect from the date of his retirement according to available

medical records in case they are unable to find his RMB proceedings.

c) Direct the respondents to pay the arrears of the disability pension with effect from his date of retirement with interest @ 12% pa to be compounded

quarterly.

d) Issue any other/direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts of the case.

Through the medium of instant OA the applicant has put challenge to Letter No. AN/RTI/2922/SSR/2016 dated 21st September, 2016 issued by

PCDA, Allahabad in response to the application filed by him under the RTI Act and also letter No.24501 /RTI/Trg dated 1st October, 2016 resulting in

denial of disability pension.

The brief facts of the case in present OA are that the applicant was commissioned in the Army on 7th June, 1959 and retired prematurely from

service on 18th June, 1979, after rendering about twenty years of service. At the time of release, as contended by the applicant, he was produced

before the Release Medical Board (RMB) which opined his disease GLAUCOMATO CYCLMC CRISIS (378) at the rate of 30% for six months.

The disease was conceded by RMB as aggravated by stress and strain of military service. It is averred that due to his medical condition the applicant

took pre-mature retirement. It is also contended that as per the policy prevalent at the time of his retirement no disability pension was allowed to

persons who proceeded on premature retirement from service. It was only by letter dated 29th September, 2009 issued by Ministry of Defence,

Government of India that persons who retired prematurely after 1st January, 2006, also became entitled to disability pension. Thereafter even pre 2006

retirees who had proceeded on premature retirement became eligible for disability pension vide the order dated 7th February, 2012 by this Tribunal in

the case of Maj Rajesh Kumar lihardwaj (Retd) Vs. Union of India and Ors. (OA 336/2011). Thereupon, the applicant, though getting service element

of pension, filed the present OA claiming Disability Element of Pension along with interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted a copy of the medical board proceedings which clearly indicate the following

facts:

(a) That the officer was suffering from Glucoma Right Eye.

(b) That the Medical Board has opined the disease to be aggravated by military service.

(c) The disability percentage has been opined by the Medical Board at the rate of thrity per cent for six months.

However, to our surprise we find that in reply affidavit the respondents have take a stand that in 1979 when the applicant proceeded on voluntary

retirement, there was no provision for disability pension for personnel in this category hence his case was never processed for disability pension.

Further they have tried to justify the denial of disability pension on the ground that this is not a case of invalidation, hence he is not entitled to disability

pension. In the light of the sixth pay commission recommendation authorising disability pension to post 2006 retirees and the same provisions being

extended to pre 2006 cases, through judicial orders, we are not impressed with the reply of the respondents.

We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records. In the light of rival submissions and

original records of Medical Board, as made available to us, the lone question that arises before us for consideration is as to whether the applicant being

a case of voluntary retirement in the year1979 with his disability at the rate of 30%, aggravated by military service, is eligible for disability pension or

not?

In this connection, we have noted that on perusal of original Medical Board documents available on record, it is clear to us that the disability of the

applicant GLAUCOMATO CYCLMC CRISIS at the rate of 30%, for six months after discharge, is aggravated by military service.

Thus in view of the above facts, we are of the considered opinion that the applicant is, prima facie, eligible for disability pension. The applicant is

already in receipt of service element for life. However, his eligibility to disability element can technically *art only start after VI Pay Commission, i.e.

1st January, 2006. Notwithstanding the above, the applicant has approached this Tribunal late and his delay has been condoned on grounds of law

settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Tarsem Singh (2009) (1) AISLJ 37.1 Thus the applicant is not entitled

beyond three years of filing this OA for any kind of arrears accruing to him. Thus considering the totality of circumstances the applicant is not entitled

to any arrears for the disability element. In any case his RMB was valid for a period of only six months as per the opinion of RMB, after his

discharge, hence the applicant will have to undergo a fresh Medical Board. His future entitlement to disability element will, therefore, depend upon the

outcome of the RSMB which the respondents are required to conduct within a period of four months from the date of this order. The applicant is

about seventy years of age as on date and the original medical board documents, as supplied by the respondents to this Tribunal, may be utilized to

conduct the RSMB of the applicant.

The OA is accordingly partly allowed in the above terms. The respondents are directed to conduct RSMB of the applicant within four months from

the date of receipt of this order.

No order as to costs.

Pronounced in open Court on this 30th day of January, 2020.