The central legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of sound health upon entering military service, the onus of proof on the employer, and the requirement to establish a casual connection between the disability and military service for the grant of disability pension.

1. Petitioner was enrolled in Dogra regiment of the Indian Army on 14.11.1967. He was discharged from service on at his own request on 31.12.1989 in Low Medical category CEE (P) for disability "CATARACT (GPTD) Rt. EYE". He rendered service for 22 years and 48 days. The Release Medical Board recorded his disability as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, though percentage of his disability was assessed @ 40% for two years. He was granted service pension for his qualifying service. Claim for Disability Pension was rejected on the ground that the disability was not attributable to military service and that the disability did not fulfill the following namely "that it existed before or arose during military service and has been or remains aggravated thereby". This decision of PCDA (A), Allahabad rejecting claim of petitioner for disability pension was assailed in appeal by the petitioner. The first appeal was rejected. This happened in 1992 vide letter dated 11.4.2014. Petitioner raked up the issue with Records, the Dogra Regiment for grant of disability element which was declined. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act seeking a direction to the respondents for setting aside the impugned opinion of the Release Medical Board (Annexure A5 and Annexures A6 to A8 and All) wherein the disability claim of petitioner has been rejected by the respondents. Besides he seeks a direction to the respondents to declare the disability "CATARACT (OPTD) Rt. Eye of the petitioner as aggravated by military service and grant of disability element of disability pension from the date of discharge from service with rounding off benefit and interest. It is claimed that the petitioner was medically and physically examined by the Medical Officer at the time of recruitment and he was found fit and placed in Medical Categorisation SHAPE-I. Second Medical Examination of the petitioner was conducted when he reported to the Training Centre. Petitioner was not found suffering from any kind of disease and he was declared medically fit. He was discharged from army w.e.f. 31.12.1989 in low medical category CEE (P) for the disability "Cataract (Optd) Rt. Eye" with 40% disability. While service pension was granted in his favour, disability pension was denied on the ground that he had been discharged from service at his on request. It is claimed that vision of both eyes of petitioner was 6/6 and he was not suffering from any kind of eye disease at the time of enrolment. It is further claimed that the petitioner suffered the disability pre-senile Cataract both eyes which he contracted during service and he was downgraded to low medical category. He was operated upon and during re-categorisation he was placed in low medical category CEE (Per). The Release Medical Board opined that the disability of petitioner was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service (NANA) and considered it as a degenerated disease though, the disability of petitioner was not existing before his entry into service. There was no note in his medical documents to suggest that the petitioner was suffering from cataract eye at the time of enrolment. It is further claimed that the petitioner served for nine long years in the Field and High altitude and insurgency area of Nagaland, Dimapur besides serving three tenures in J & K which was full of stress & strain. This resulted in origination of disease of eyes. His claim that the respondents were not justified in rejecting the petitioner's claim for disability pension on the ground of his premature discharge at his own request.

2. Respondents have contested the claim of the petitioner on the ground that his disability was recorded as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service by the Release Medical Board and that the petitioner was discharged from service at his own request. It is further pleaded that the petitioner approached the Recor