The Hon’ble AFT (PB) Delhi allowed benefit of Disability Pension in NANA case of Diabetes Miletus Type-2 where Onset was in peace areas in the matter of Lt Col AK Sinha in OA/1778/2018 vide Order dated 09 May 2019. Again the Hon’ble Tribunal allowed Disability pension in identical cases of vide order dt. 10 Jan 2019, in Ex WO Sridam Chandra Das (denied disability pension by IAF for the disease of Primary Hypertension/Dyslip, as it was detected in peace station) in OA 1815/2018, relying upon the Order of squarely covered by the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Dharamvir Singh ((2013) 7 SCC 316), Rajbir Singh & others ((2015) 12 SCC 264) & UoI vs Angad Singh Titaria (Supra). So far as the disability pension is concern; the law is settled in view of the above judgments, whereby it has been held that a member presumed to have been in sound physical and mental condition upon entering the service except as to disabilities noted and recorded at the time of entrance, and thus, any disability that is detected subsequently during the service should be cogent reasons are given by the medical authorities for the same, which is missing in applicant case thus, denying disability pension in mechanical manner without any specialist opinion etc just to deny entitlement is bad in Law.
Relying upon above judgment, this Hon’ble AFT in OA/1827/2018 on 06 Aug 2019, extended the benefit of Disability pension to the Applicant therein ie, EX Petty Officer Soumya Prakash Pany who also suffers PH in peace station. The Applicant is seeking parity with the judgments on similar matter rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as various benches of AFTs including this Principle Bench, relying upon the Orders passed earlier.
The Hon’ble Tribunal allowed Disability pension in identical cases vide order dt. 10 Jan 2019 in Ex LCOM(Tel) Umesh Kr. Lenka in OA 1817 of 2018, who was denied Disability Pension by Naval Authority, due to the reason that he was found infested with disability of “Primary Hypertension” not at afloat.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UoI & Ors vs Manjit Singh, JT 2015 (5) SC 255 has given list of judgments of the Hon’ble Court wherein each and every issue like contacting disease in peace area and close time association with stress and strain have been considered. The ratio of all the judgments, one after another, rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court negate all these pleas which have been taken by the Respondents repeatedly and that too which are not in consonance with Para 423 of Regulations for the Medical Services Pension, which has been considered in the case of Dharamvir Singh (Supra)
Following this settled Law, Hon’ble AFT Chandigarh vide Order dt. 15 Feb 2019 in similar case in OA No.298 of 2011 filed by Harpal Singh Vs UoI has granted benefit of Disability pension for the disease of Seizure. A similar liberal view was taken by the Regional Bench of AFT Chandigarh vide Order dtd 23 Sep 2019 in OA 1366 of 2019 Ex Naik Baljeet Singh vs UoI&Ors whereas in case of Seizure, the rejection of the claim of the applicant was set aside (Onset was in pace area).
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Dharamvir Singh (2013) 7 SCC 316; further held that :-
(i) The RMB is required to indicate if any disease was present at the time of initial recruitment;
(ii) In case the Medical Board does not indicate the disease at the time of recruitment, then the RMB must take a note that this disease could not have been detected at the time of initial recruitment. The Board is required to give reasons for the same; and
(iii) Any medical ailment that is caused in respect of the applicant cannot be said to be not attributable to the military service as at the time of the entry into the service the Applicant was found fit in all respects and there was no observation on any disease in the medical entry form whatsoever at the time of entry into Force. As a matter of fact the RMB in no uncertain term held that the disease was contracted while in service due to cause on which the applicant had no control. Hence, in terms of the entitlement rules the attributability was required to be presumed in favour of the applicant.