The court affirmed the presumption of service-related disabilities unless disproven by the employer, supporting the grant of disability pension.

JUDGMENT :

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This petition assails order dated 21 July 2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, [“the AFT”, hereinafter] in OA 961/2020 whereby the respondent’s application for grant of disability pension on the ground that he suffers from CNS (INV) Seizure Disorder with 20% disability for life, rounded off to 50% for life, have been allowed by the AFT.

2. The issue is covered by a recent decision rendered by us in UOI v Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso, [2025 SCC OnLine Del 2018]

3. Nonetheless, we have heard Mr. N.K. Aggarwal, SPC for the petitioners, and have perused the record.

4. The respondent was released in Low Medical Category on his being found to be suffering from CNS (INV) Seizure Disorder. From the record, including the proceedings of the Release Medical Board, [“RMB”, hereinafter] the following facts emerged:

(i) The respondent had served in the Indian Army for over 15 years 6 months and 22 days before he was diagnosed as suffering from CNS (INV) Seizure Disorder.

(ii) The respondent, in his self-declaration, specifically declared that he had not been suffering from CNS (INV) Seizure Disorder prior to joining the Indian Army. The declaration reads thus:

The correctness of this declaration is not doubted either by the RMB or by the petitioners before the AFT or before this Court.

the Seizure Disorder suffered by the respondent has not been attributable to military service, as entered by the RMB reads thus:

“CNS (INV) SEIZURE DISORDER (G-40.0) – Onset in peace area. Hence Neither attributable nor aggravation conceded ref para 33, CH-IV,GMO 2008.”

(iv) We have already held, in our judgment in Gawas Anil Madso, that where the applicant was not suffering from the ailment at the time of entry into service, the RMB is required to positively identify the cause for the ailment, to justify a finding that it is not attributable to military service. The Commanding Officer’s certificate specifically states that the respondent was not responsible, owing to any act or omission of his, for the ailment from which he was suffering. The entry in that regard reads as under:

 (v) Regarding para 33 of the Chapter VI of the GMO 2008, we have, in our judgment in UOI v EX LCOM (TAC) Anil Kumar, [2025 SCC OnLine Del 2349], observed thus:

“11. Apropos Epilepsy, Para 33 of Chapter VI of the GMO 2008, vivisected into its individual components, specifies that:

(i) Epilepsy can develop at any age, often in adolescents, with or without a family history.

(ii) While some cases are idiopathic, potential causes include brain trauma, infections, metabolic disorders, or high-altitude anoxia.

(iii) Epilepsy is considered attributable to service if caused by infections or service-related trauma.

(iv) Seizures can be triggered by sleep deprivation, stress, exhaustion, infections, fever, and loud noise.

(v) Epilepsy may develop up to seven years after exposure to trauma, infection, or tuberculosis, which latency period should be considered before rejecting epilepsy cases.

(vi) Epilepsy aggravation is considered if seizures occur during active service in high-risk environments, and (vii) high-risk duties include battles, frontline operations, military training, high-altitude missions, and submarine or deep-sea service.”

(vi) The RMB has certified the respondent as suffering from with 20% disability for life, on account of CNS (INV) Seizure Disorder.

5. In such circumstances, we have held in our decision in Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso that the respondent would be entitled to disability pension.

6. We do not deem it necessary to reproduce our findings in the said decision, so as not to burden this judgment.

7. We have also b