Disability pension claims must be substantiated by evidence proving the disability's connection to military service, as medical board opinions are final unless contradicted.

ORDER :

S.M.Subramaniam J.

Under assail is the order dated 19.04.2022 passed in O.A.No.138 of 2020 on the file of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chennai.

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

3. The second respondent ex-service man instituted Original Application before the Armed Forces Tribunal (hereinafter referred as AFT) challenging the validity of the order dated 17.09.2018, wherein the competent authority of the Ministry of Defence rejected the appeal on the ground that the IDs are neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. 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 27.06.1978 and discharged on 01.03.1996 and he was re-enrolled in Defence Security Corps on 27.11.2000 and medically boarded out on 30.04.2014 after rendering 13 years 5 months and 4 days of qualifying service. The second respondent was granted service pension for life vide PCDA (P) Allahabad PPO No.S/014703/1996. The second respondent was re-enrolled in Defence Security Cops (herein after referred as DSC) on 27.11.2000 and did not opt to count his former service towards DSC service. On completion of his initial terms of engagement, he was granted extension of service from 27.11.2005 to 26.11.2010 and thereafter from 27.11.2010 to 06.04.2014, ie., upto the age of superannuation of 55 years. The applicant was discharged from DSC service w.e.f. 30.04.2014 under Rule 13(3) Item III(i) of Army Rule 1954, after rendering 13 years and 155 days of qualifying service.

5. The second respondent claimed disability element of pension. Release Medical Board assessed the disabilities (i) Coronary Artery Disease AWMI- DVD - P/PCA to OMI and (ii) Dyslipidemia @ 40% and conceded 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 for the petitioners would mainly contend that the second respondent was discharged on completion of his respective tenure from military service and DSC service. 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 respondent. When the rule underwent change and new rule came into force, the Judgment delivered based on the old rule need not be relied upon. Thus, the present writ petition is to be considered.

10. Mr.M.K.Sikdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent would strenuously