The court held that the Medical Board's opinion on disability attribution is final unless contradicted by substantial evidence, emphasizing the need for a clear connection between the disability and military service.

ORDER :

S.M. Subramaniam J.

Under assail is the order dated 16.06.2022 passed in O.A.No.37 of 2021 on the file of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chennai.

2. The Union of India represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Defence is the writ petitioner before this Court.

3. The first respondent ex-service man instituted Original Application before the Armed Forces Tribunal (hereinafter referred as AFT) challenging the validity of the order dated 29.12.2020, wherein the competent authority of the Ministry of Defence rejected the claim of the first respondent in respect of disability pension on the following grounds:-

The Tribunal allowed the disability claim of the second respondent relying on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dharamvir Singh vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2013) 7 SCC 316

4. The facts in nut shell not seriously disputed between the parties would reveal that the second respondent was enrolled in Indian Army on 26.04.1995 and discharged on 30.04.2019 after rendering 24 years and 5 days of qualifying service and was receiving Service Pension. The second respondent was placed in Low Medical Category P3 with effect from 27.12.2016. The release Medical Board held on 12.09.2018 assessed the disability of the second respondent due to Hypertension @ 30% for life and Nil % for obesity with composite assessment @ 30% for life and opined that the IDs are neither attributable to nor aggravated by Military Service. First appeal preferred on 27.04.2019 came to be rejected vide letter dated 19.10.2019 and the Second Appeal dated 30.10.2019 was also rejected vide order dated 29.12.2020. Further, the second respondent was not paid Army Group Insurance Fund. Hence, the Original Application was filed.

5. The second respondent claimed disability element of pension. Release Medical Board assessed the disabilities viz., Hypertension @ 30% for life and Nil % for obesity with composite assessment @ 30% for life, opined the IDs as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.

6. The Release Medical Board opined that IDs as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Therefore, the appellants have declined to consider the claim of the second respondent for grant of disability pension. Thus, the Original Application came to be instituted.

7. Mr.V.Balasubramanian, the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the Release Medical Board considered the nature of disability and opined that the IDs as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. However, the Tribunal granted disability pension relying on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dharamvir Singh's case cited supra, which would not have any direct application with reference to the facts and rules applicable as far as the petitioner is concerned.

8. As per the rule which came into force in the year 2008, the Medical Board’s opinion became final, unless the employee could able to produce incriminating evidence rebutting the medical board’s opinion. In the present case, the release medical board’s opinion was not disputed. Therefore, the Tribunal has committed an error in granting disability pension.

9. In 2008 rules, the presumption factor was deleted and the Dharamvir Singh’s case was decided based on the presumption factor and based on the old rule of the year 1961. Therefore, the said Judgment ought not to have been relied upon by the Arms Tribunal for granting the relief of disability pension in favour of the second