IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the burden of proof regarding the attribution of disability to military service lies with the employer, and the presumption of sound health at enlistment is significant in such claims.

ORDER :

Ravi Cheemalapati, J.

Challenge laid in this Writ Petition is to the orders dated 08.09.2023 passed in O.A.No.197 of 2019 by the Armed Forces, Tribunal, Regional Bench at Chennai, Circuit Bench at Hyderabad, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for quashing the Order No.15328465/Pen(D) dated 04.12.2018 passed by respondent no.3 in rejecting disability pension claim was disposed of being bereft of merit.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that, he was enrolled in Indian Army (MEG) on 26.06.2002, having been found fully fit with no prior and prerequisite disease and after rendering qualifying service of 04 months 22 days, he was declared unfit to serve and was invalided out from service on 18.11.2002 on the ground that the Invaliding Medical Board found that he was suffering from an Invaliding Disease (ID) viz., ‘Acute Schizophrenia – Like Psychotic Disorder’ assessed @ 30% for life, which is neither attributable to nor aggravated by Military Service. It is his further case that as copy of the proceedings of Invaliding Medical Board was not tendered on him, he could not prefer appeal to Re-Survey Medical Board and thus his legitimate right to prefer appeal was denied and since he was diagnosed with the Invaliding Disease whilst in service, which is aggravated due to stress and strain including physical complications of Military Service and its strenuous training, he is entitled for disability pension, however, the Chief CDA (P), Allahabad rejected disability pension on the ground that the Invaliding Disease is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service and first & second appeals preferred against the same were also rejected so also his representation made to respondent no.3 subsequent to rejection of second appeal. Aggrieved by rejection of second appeal, the petitioner filed O.A.No.197 of 2019 and the Armed Forces Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Hyderabad, contrary to the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India & Ors., (2013) 7 SCC 316 and Union of India and another v. Rajbir Singh, (2015) 12 SCC 264, disposed of the said O.A.being devoid of merit. It is his further case that the Armed Forces Tribunal erred in not considering the fact that the petitioner was admitted into service having been found that he was physically and mentally fit to join in military service and therefore, the illness diagnosed whilst in service must be attributable to and aggravated by the Military Service and since Invaliding Disease was assessed more than 20%, he is entitled to get disability pension as per Army Rules, 1954 and therefore, since the respondents failed to show that the petitioner was suffering from the disability at the time of enrolment, the Armed Forces Tribunal, ought to have extended benefit of doubt in his favour and grant disability pension, which is a beneficial provision.

3. Heard Sri R.Arun Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner.

4. Sri R.Arun Kumar, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit and by placing reliance of the decisions rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to supra, would contend that acceptance of the petitioner to serve in Army in Shape-1 (fully found fit) is suggestive of the fact that the petitioner was fit both physically and mentally prior to and at the time of joining into service and therefore, the Invaliding Disease found whilst in service is presumably either attributable to or aggravated by military service. The learned counsel would further contend that the Armed Forces Tribunal erred in shifting the onus of proof on to the petitioner in contravention of Army Rules and oblivious of the fact that payment of disability pension is a beneficial provision which ought to be interpreted liberally so as to benefit those who suffer disability during the tenure. The learned counsel would further contend that as the petitioner was not served with copy of the proceedings of the Invaliding Medical Board, he could n