COURT NO. 1, ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI 26. OA 2472/2022 with MA 1266/2023 & 3369/2022 In the matter of : Ex Nk Jagdish Chandra (DSC) ... Applicant Versus Union of India &Ors. ... Respondents For Applicant : Shri Ramniwas Bansal, Advocate For Respondents: Shri Arvind Kumar, Advocate CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA MENON, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE LT. GEN. C P MOHANTY, MEMBER (A) ORDER 18.05.2023 MA 3369/2022 Counter affidavits has been filed. There being delay in filing the same, this application has been filed seeking condonation of delay. Delay is condoned. Counter affidavit is taken on record. MA stands disposed of. MA 1266/2023: Keeping in view the averments made in the miscellaneous application and finding the same to be bona fide, in the light of the decision in Union of India and others Vs. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648, the same is allowed condoning the delay in filing the O.A. MA stands disposed of. OA 2472/2022 1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the applicant filed this OA praying to direct the respondents to accept the disabilities of the applicant as attributable to/aggravated by military service and grant disability pension with benefit of broad-banding with effect from the date of retirement along with all consequential benefits. 2. The applicant was enrolled in Indian Air Force on 28.05.1979 and was discharged on 31.05.2000. The Release Medical Board held that the applicant was fit to be discharged from service in composite low medical category for the disabilities- (a) Primary Hypertension @ 30%, (b) Dyslipidemia@ 1-5% and (c) Diabetes Mellitus Type-2 @ 20% and while the qualifying element for disability pension was recorded as NIL for life on account of disabilities being treated as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service (NANA). The claim of the applicant for grant of disability pension was rejected vide Letter dated 23.97.2019. Hence this OA. 4. ’ Placing reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh v. UOI & Ors [2013 (7) SCC 36], learned Counsel for applicant argues that no note of any disability was recorded in the service documents of the applicant at the time of the entry into the service, and that he served in the Indian Air Force at various places in different environmental and service conditions in his prolonged service, thereby, any disability at the time of his service is deemed to be attributable to or aggravated by military service. 5. Per Contra, learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that under the provisions of the Pension Regulations the primary condition for grant of disability pension is invalidation out of service on account of a disability which isattributable to or aggravated by military service and is assessed @ 20% or more. 6. Relying on the aforesaid provision, Learned Counsel for respondents further submits that the aforesaid disabilities of the applicant were assessed as “neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service” and not connected with the Indian Army service and as such, his claim was rejected. Thus, the applicant is not entitled for grant of disability pension due to policy constraints. 7. On the careful perusal of the materials available on record and also the submissions made on behalf of the parties, we are of the opinion that it is not in dispute that the extent of disability was assessed to be above 20% which is the bare minimum for grant of disability pension in terms of the Pension Regulations for the Indian Air Force. The only question that arises in the above backdrop is whether disability suffered by the applicant was attributable to or aggravated by Air Force service. 8. The issue of attributability of disease is no longer res integra in view of the verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court inDharamvir Singh v. Union of India (supra), wherein it is clearly spelt out that any disease contracted during