Armed Forces Tribunal: In an application filed by former army personnel seeking a grant of disability pension by quashing the impugned order of the Release Medical Board (‘the Board’), the Two Member Bench of Sudhir Mittal*, J. and Lt Gen (Dr) Ranbir Singh held that the applicant was entitled to the disability pension as the question of whether the disease arose in peace area or field station made no difference as far as attributability of medical service to the disease was concerned. Holding this the Court allowed the application and quashed the impugned order.
Background
The applicant was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 21-08-1982 and served around 38 years of service until his discharge on 30-04-2021. At the time of his discharge, he was in a permanent low medical category due to disability of primary hypertension, which was to the extent of 30 percent. The applicant had asked for disability element in his pension but the Board rejected his request stating that the disability was neither attributable to nor caused by military service. Aggrieved, the applicant filed the present application.
Issue
Whether the onset of a disease in a peace area, per se, result in the disease being held as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service?
Analysis
The Court stated that it was apparent that the Regulations for Medical Officers Services of Armed Forces, 2010 (‘the Regulations’) were issued by the Defence Ministry and are part of the Defence Service Regulations. The Court stated that the Regulations, though non-statuary in nature, carried the force of law as they contained rules for regulating the day-to-day life of soldiers and officers, were strictly adhered to by the Armed Forces and their violation was punishable. Thus, they would prevail over the Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pensions) 2008 (‘The Guide’) which was an in-house publication of the Armed Forces medical services, did not carry the force of law, and its violation was not a punishable offence.
The Court stated that the Regulations made it abundantly clear that the location of onset of disease is immaterial. Whether the disease had arisen in a peace station or a field station made no difference whatsoever so far as the attributability was concerned. It was, however, necessary to establish a causal connection. The mere fact that the disease manifested itself many years after joining service was sufficient to conclude that the same was attributable to military service because it was a fact that the stress and strain of military service were unique. Thus, the Court stated that there were inherent restrictions which contributed to mental stress and strain apart from the fact of being separated from their family and loved ones for long periods.
The Court said that the Raksha Mantri Committee of Experts, 2015 had agreed with the aforementioned and recommended that no distinction was to be made between posting in the peace area and field area as far as attributability was concerned. Subsequently, the Directorate General Armed Forces Medical Services issued instructions on similar lines regarding the issuance of fitness certificates for civil employment to ex-servicemen retiring in the low medical category.
Noting the above, the Court held that the finding of the applicant’s disease being neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service as recorded by the Board was patently illegal and against the thought process of the Armed Forces itself.
The Court further held that this was in line with Rule 10(b) of the Entitlement Rule for Causality Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 2008 (‘the Entitlement Rules’) which stated that for acceptance of disease as attributable, two conditions needed to be simultaneously satisfied
(a) the disease was caused during military service, and
(b) was caused by conditions of employment in military service.
Thus, both these conditions stood satisfied when considered in the aforementioned perspective.
The Court referred to the case of Union of India v. Ex Hav Aurjan Singh1 wherein the respondent was suffering from primary hypertension apart from other diseases and it was held that there was a presumption of attributability in favour of a serviceman which may be rebutted. However, if the Government failed to rebut the presumption, it had to be held that the disease was attributable to service conditions. The Court stated that in the instant case, the respondents failed to rebut this presumption, so the opinion of the Board was rendered illegal.
Holding the aforesaid, the Court allowed the application and quashed the impugned order. The applicant was held entitled to the grant of disability element for 30% disability rounded off to 50%. The Court also directed the Union to issue the Corrigendum Pension Payment Order within 3 months and pay the arrears in this said period, failing which the arrears would become payable with interest @ 6% per annum.
[Ex MWO Bhupinder Singh v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine AFT 6380, decided on 06-12-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the applicant: Advocate Navdeep Singh
For the respondent: CGC Parikshit Singh
1. CWP No.24007 of 2024
