IMPORTANT POINT
The opinion of the Medical Board is critical in determining disability pension eligibility, and the AFT must respect this unless significant flaws are identified.

JUDGMENT :

S. MANU, J.

1. The granting of disability pension to ex-service personnel largely depends on the opinion of the medical boards. Authorities in charge either grant or deny the benefit after analysing the opinions of medical experts. When the benefit is denied, the aggrieved individual often seeks recourse by approaching the Armed Forces Tribunal (henceforth referred to as AFT). The Tribunal then proceeds to examine the impugned decision. The main issue addressed in this judgment is to what extent and in what manner the decisions made by the authorities, relying on the opinion of medical experts, can be reviewed by the AFT.

Facts

2. Union of India and officials of it concerned have filed this writ petition against the order dated 4 August 2022 in O.A. No. 457/2018 of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi. The sole Respondent in the writ petition was the Applicant in the O.A.

3. We shall begin narrating the factual backdrop. The Respondent initially joined 122 Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army) in the year 1983 and continued for 6 years and 15 days. On 12 August 1989 he joined Defense Security Corps at DSC Centre, Kannur. After serving at various stations, he retired on 31 April 2016 from DSC, Kannur. He was placed in Low Medical Category with effect from 22 July 2013. The Medical Board proceedings show that he was suffering from type-II diabetes mellitus and percentage of disablement was assessed as 20.

4. In the certificate dated 26 September 2015 it has been mentioned that the Respondent was not entitled for disability pension on account of diabetes mellitus type-II, since the same was not aggravated/not attributable to service. By communication dated 7 April 2016 Respondent was informed by the Records Officer that the competent authority, after consultation with the competent medical authority and in accordance with the relevant rules and other provisions, had decided that the Respondent was not entitled to disability pension. Assessment made by the Release Medical Board was referred in the communication dated 7 April 2016. The Respondent submitted appeal as provided under the relevant Rules, but the same was rejected by order dated 12 April 2017. The second appeal submitted by the Respondent also met the same fate as it was rejected by order dated 17 May 2018.

5. In the O.A. , the Respondent sought following reliefs:

“(i) To set aside Annexure A5 order.

(ii) To declare that the applicant is entitled for disability element/pension and thereafter direct the respondents to grant and disburse all disability pension along with statutory interest.

(iii) To issue such other direction or orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in this case.”

6. The Petitioners filed reply statement refuting the contentions of the Respondent. They referred to the relevant Rules and Regulations and contended that the Release Medical Board is the competent authority to determine about disability and the Board in the case of the Respondent opined that the disease is not attributable or aggravated by military service. The disease of the Respondent is a metabolic disorder with a strong genetic preponderance. They also contended that the disability for qualifying for disability pension is nil in the case of the Respondent and not 20% as claimed in the O.A. The Petitioners cited various orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal and judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in support of their arguments.

7. The AFT disposed the O.A. by order dated 4 August 2022. The AFT disagreed with the reasoning of the statutory authorities. It relied on its order in O.A. No. 95/2019 to rule in favour of the Respondent. It also granted benefit of rounding off the disability at 50%. The AFT categorically held that the Release Medical Board went wrong in denying the claim for disability pension on the reason that the illness is not aggravated by Military service as the onset was during in a peace station. The AFT directed the 3rd Petitioner to issue a corrig