Monday, May 11, 2015

MOST IMPORTANT JUDGEMENT ON DISABILITY PENSION NY SUPREME COURT OF INDIA



Dear Veterans,

The attachement consisting RDOA letter and Supreme Court Judgement which emphsizes that when there is no note of any disease recorded in the documents offrs/PBOR at the time comissioning and enrolement, such diseases are deemed to be occured during Service and attributable/aggravated by Mil Service.

I am one of the sufferer when three med boards given aggravated by Service, including the Recat Med Bd(held at MH Sec'bad on 31 May 2006) given 30% Disability But the Release Med Bd which held on 03-2-2007 made it Not Aggravated to Mil Service but at 30% Disability. Strange is that the composition of the Bd Members of Release Med Bd are all
most the same of Recat Med Bd of 31 May 2006. My two appeals were rejected by the Integrated HQ of Min of Def(Army). But after a gap of 7 years I knocked the AFT, Chennai and the verdict is in my favor in Feb this year giving 3 months time for implementation. 

Of course I have to yet to get Sanction from Govt of India through AG's Branch PS4/5 unless the G of I appeal to Hon'ble Suprement Court.But I am doubtful that they may not appeal in the Light of Hon'ble Supreme Courts Judgement.Some of you may anxiety to know my disability. It is Primary Hypertension.

Earlier I thought to put my case for the information to applicable veterans who have left hope.

As Brought out by Col Annam Prabhakar Gupta, I am sharing my case in support of his advice that we must go to AFT chennai , if any injustice done.

Jai Jawan Jai Veterans Jai IESM

Regards

Lt col SS Rao Namana(retd)
==========================================================================================
                                                                                                Dated: 10 Oct 2013
To,

Secretary,
Dept of Ex Servicemen Welfare,
South Block, New Delhi.
 Controller General of Defence Accounts (CGDA)

 PCDA Pensions

Draupadi Ghat,
Allahabad                                                                                                         
PAYMENT OF DISABILITY PENSION : NEITHER ATTRIBUTED  NOR AGGRAVATED (NANA) BY MILITARY SERVICE

 Dear Sir,


1.         It is intimated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its Judgment in the case no Civil Appeal 4949 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No 2940 of 2010 (Dharamvir Singh vs UOI) upheld the judgment passed by the Single judge dated 20 May 2004. As elaborated in Para 28 and 29 of the said judgment, the court has made it absolutely clear that ‘if a person at the time of entry into service was in sound physical and mental health and no entry of any disability exists in his record; then any disability occurring to the individual would be deemed to have occurred in service and would be attributed to and aggravated to military service’ and therefore such a person would be entitled to disability pension if it is 20 % or more. E-copy of Judgment attached.
 2.        There are a large number of Officers/JCOs/ORs who have been denied disability pension due to the remark ‘Neither attributed  nor aggravated due to Military Service’ endorsed in their release medical board proceedings although such disabilities occurred during their service tenure and they had disability of 20% or more.

 3.        In view of facts as stated above, it is requested that the cases of such individuals who have proceeded on retirement without getting disability pension should be reviewed and the disability pension on account of ‘NANA’ which has been denied to them should be paid retrospectively.

 4.        It is not expected of every affected person to approach the ‘Courts’ individually or collectively to seek redressal for admissibility of the said disability pension, once the ratio has been established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the instant case. It will only increase the work load of the courts.

 5.        Retired Defence Officers Association (RDOA) will be constrained to claim interest and relief from the Apex Court in case the disability pension benefit is denied as has happened in the IV CPC Rank Pay Case. It is hoped that action would be taken to give disability pension to the affected ‘Veterans’.

 Thanking you,

Lt Col Satwant Singh (Retd)

Secretary
For RDOA
 Copy to:

 The Director,

Addl Dte Gen Pers Services,
PS 5, AG’s Branch, AHQ,
Room No 419, A Wing, Sena Bhawan
DHQ PO, New Delhi 110011
 DDG Veterans Cell,
AG’s Branch AHQ
 =========================================================================================== 
*          *          *          *          *
 
                                                                  REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 
                       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4949  OF 2013
                   (arising out of SLP(C)No. 6940 of 2010)
 
DHARAMVIR SINGH                                    .... APPELLANT
 
                             VERSUS
 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                           ....RESPONDENTS
 
                               J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.
 
 
      Leave granted.
 
2.    This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against  the  judgment
dated 31st July, 2009 in LPA No.26 of 2004 passed by the Division  Bench  of
the High Court of Himachanl  Pradesh,  Shimla  whereby  the  Division  Bench
allowed the appeal preferred by  the  Union  of  India  and  set  aside  the
judgment dated 20th May, 2004 passed by the learned Single  Judge  in  Civil
Writ Petition No.660 of 2004.
 
3.    The questions involved in this case are:
 
      (i)   Whether a member of Armed Forces can be presumed to have been in
      sound physical and mental condition upon entering service  in  absence
      of disabilities or disease noted or recorded at the time of entrance.
 
      (ii)  Whether the appellant is entitled for disability pension.
 
4.    The factual matrix of the case is as follows:
 
      The appellant was enrolled as Sepoy in the Corps  of  Signals  of  the
Indian Army on 15th June, 1985. Having rendered about 9 years of service  in
Indian Army he was boarded out of the service with effect  from  Ist  April,
1994 on the ground of 20% permanent disability as  he  was  found  suffering
from "Genrealised seizure (Epilepsy)".  The Medical  Board  of  Army  opined
that the "disability is not related to military service".  On the  basis  of
disability report, no disability pension was granted to  him  and  when  the
appellant preferred representation the respondents rejected such  prayer  by
an order dated 12th  December,  1995  on  the  ground  that  the  disability
suffered by the appellant was neither attributable to nor aggravated by  the
military service.
 
5.    The appellant approached the High Court of Himachal Pradesh  in  Civil
Writ Petition No.660 of 2004 seeking a direction  to  respondents  to  grant
disability pension with effect from 1st April, 1994.  Learned  Single  Judge
by judgment dated 20th May, 2004 on observing  that  there  was  nothing  on
record to show that the appellant was suffering  from  any  disease  at  the
time of his initial recruitment in the Indian Army  held  that  the  disease
would be deemed to be attributable to or aggravated by  the  Army  services.
Therefore, in terms of Regulation 173 of Pension Regulations for  the  Army,
1961 the appellant is  eligible  for  disability  pension.   Learned  Single
Judge allowed the writ  petition  and  directed  the  respondents  to  grant
disability pension to the appellant as per rules with effect from  the  date
he was invalidated out of service and to pay the entire arrears  of  pension
within three months else they shall  be  liable  to  pay  interest  on  such
arrears at the rate of 9% per annum.
 
6.    The Union of India challenged  the  decision  of  the  learned  Single
Judge before the Division Bench of the High Court  of  Himachal  Pradesh  in
LPA No.26 of 2004. On behalf of the Union of India  it  was  contended  that
disease"generalized seizure" was constitutional in nature and the  same  has
not been found by the Re-Survey Medical Board attributable or aggravated  by
military service. It was also contended that the learned  Single  Judge  had
not taken into consideration the relevant law while allowing  the  petition.
The Division Bench referring to a judgment of this Court in Union  of  India
and others vs. Keshar Singh, (2007) 12 SCC 675, and Rule  7  as  noticed  in
the said judgment held as follows and set aside  the  order  passed  by  the
learned Single Judge:
 
           "The respondent was discharged from  the  military  after  being
           placed in Low Medical  Category  (CEE).  The  Re-survey  Medical
           Board had  opined  the  disability  of  the  respondent  neither
           attributable nor  aggravated  military  service.  He  was  found
           suffering from 'generalised seizure'. The learned  Single  Judge
           has purportedly referred  to  paragraph  7(b)  of  Appendix-IIas
           referred to in Regulation 48, 173 and 185 while  coming  to  the
           conclusion that  the  respondent  was  not  suffering  from  the
           disease on account of  which  he  was  invalidated  out  of  the
           service at the time of his initial  recruitment  in  the  Indian
           Army. However, the learned Single Judge has omitted to take note
           of paragraph 7(c) of Appendix-II as referred  to  in  Regulation
           48, 173 and  185  of  the  Pension  Regulations  for  the  Army,
           1961(Part-I).
 
           The legal position raised in this Letters Patent  Appeal  is  no
           more res integra in view of law laid down by their Lordships  of
           the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. Versus Keshar
           Singh, 2007 (4) SLR 100. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble  Supreme
           Court were also seized of the matter wherein the  Medical  Board
           had given a clear opinion that the illness was not  attributable
           to military service. In this case also the soldier has developed
           schizophrenia. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have
           held as under:
 
              "In  support  of  the  appeal  learned  Additional  Solicitor
              General submitted that both  learned  Single  Judge  and  the
              Division Bench have lost sight of para 7(c).  Both  7(b)  and
              7(c) have to be read together. They read as follows:
 
              "7(b) A disease which has led to an individual's discharge or
              death will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service  if
              no note of it was made at the time of  service.  However,  if
              medical opinion holds for reasons  to  be  stated,  that  the
              disease could not have been detected on  medical  examination
              prior to acceptance for  service  the  disease  will  not  be
              deemed to have arisen during service.
 
              7(c) If a disease is accepted as having arisen in service. It
              must also  be established that  the  conditions  of  military
              service determined or contributed to the onset of the disease
              and that the conditions were due to the circumstances of duty
              in military service."
 
           A bare reading of the aforesaid provision makes  it  clear  that
           ordinarily if a disease has led to the discharge  of  individual
           it shall ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in  service  if  no
           note of it was made at the time of individual's  acceptance  for
           military service. An exception, however, is carvd out,  i.e.  if
           medical opinion holds for reasons to be stated that the  disease
           could not have been detected by Medical Examination Board  prior
           to acceptance for service, the disease would not  be  deemed  to
           have arisen during service. Similarly,  clause  (c)  of  Rule  7
           makes the position clear that if a disease is accepted as having
           arisen  in  service  it  must  also   be  established  that  the
           condition of military service determined or contributed  to  the
           onset of the disease and that the  conditions  are  due  to  the
           circumstances of duty in military service. There is no  material
           placed by the respondent in this regard.
 
           In view of the legal position referred to  above  and  the  fact
           that the Medical Board's opinion was clearly to the effect  that
           the illness suffered by the respondent was not  attributable  to
           the military service, both the  learned  Single  Judge  and  the
           Division  Bench  were  not   justified   in   their   respective
           conclusion.   The  respondent  is  not  entitled  to  disability
           pension. However, on the facts and circumstances  of  the  case,
           payment already made to the  respondent  by  way  of  disability
           pension shall not be recovered from him.  The appeal is  allowed
           but in the circumstances without any order as to costs."
 
           The  disease  developed  by  the  petitioner  i.e.  'generalised
           seizore' is constitutional in nature and the  Re-survey  Medical
           Board had specifically  opined,  as  noticed  above,   that  the
           disability  was  neither  attributable  nor  aggravated  by  the
           military service. The opinion of the Re-survey Medical Board has
           to be given primacy.
 
           Accordingly, the learned  Single  Judge  has  erred  in  law  by
           allowing the writ petition only on the basis of plain reading of
           paragraph 7(b) of Appendix-IIas referred to  in  Regulation  48,
           173 and 185 of the Pension Regulation for the Army, 1961  (Part-
           I). He has omitted to see  clauses  7(c)  of  Appendix-IIof  the
           Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Pat-I).
 
           Consequently, in view of the observation made  hereinabove,  the
           Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. The judgment of learned Single
           Judge is set aside. No costs."
 
 
7.    Learned counsel for  the  appellant  contended  that  the  Entitlement
Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 have been made  effective  w.e.f.
Ist January,  1982  and  the  set  of  rules  is  required  to  be  read  in
conjunction with the Guide to Medical  Officers  (Military  Pension),  1980.
Referring to Rule 423(c) it was submitted that the cause  of  disability  or
death resulting from a disease will be regarded as attributable  to  service
when it is established  that  the  disease  arose  during  service  and  the
conditions and circumstances of duty in  the  Armed  Forces  determined  and
contributed to the onset of the disease.  A disease  which  has  led  to  an
individual's discharge or death will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen  in
service if no note of it was made at the  time  of  individual's  acceptance
for service in the Armed Forces. However,  if  medical  opinion  holds,  for
reasons to be stated that the  disease  could  not  have  been  detected  on
medical examination prior to acceptance for service, the  disease  will  not
be deemed to have arisen during service.
 
8.    Reliance was placed on Rules 5,6,9 and 14 to show that  the  appellant
was entitled to the benefit and the respondents  ought  to  have  given  the
same in consideration of the said rules.  It was further contended  that  it
will be for the service authorities to make all practical  investigation  to
establish the alleged fact, calling  upon  the  claimant,  if  necessary  to
assist and to show that  the  employee  was  suffering  from  disability  or
disease at the time of appointment and such disease is not  attributable  to
or aggravated by service.
 
9.    Per contra, according to the respondents, the question is no more  res
integra having settled by this Court in Keshar Singh (supra).
 
10.   Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union  of  India  submitted
that in each case when disability pension is sought for and  claim  is  made
it must be affirmatively established as a matter of fact as to  whether  the
disease is due to military service or that it  was  aggravated  by  military
service which contributed to invalidation from service.  According  to  him,
in the  present  case,  the  Medical  Board  has  clearly  opined  that  the
invalidating   disease'left   partial   motor   seizure    with    secondary
generalisation' is not related  to  military  service.   The  Medical  Board
having examined the  appellant  and  having  taken  into  consideration  all
evidence before it  once  submitted  its  opinion,  it  is  binding  on  the
parties.  It was contended that the opinion of the Board has been  given  by
the medical experts approved  by  a  superior  Medical  Officer,  Brigadier.
Unless the primary condition in Regulation 173 is  satisfied  the  appellant
cannot derive advantage. He also placed reliance on Rules 6,8 14(c)  and  17
of "Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982" and referred  to
decisions of this Court to suggest that the appellant  is  not  entitled  to
disability pension in view of the opinion of the Medical Board comprised  of
experts in the field.
 
11.   In the impugned judgment dated 31st July, 2009, the Division Bench  of
the High Court placed reliance on  Rules  7(a),  7(b)  and  7(c)  which  was
noticed by this Court in Keshar Singh (supra). In   Keshar  Singh(supra),  a
judgment of  the  Division  Bench  of  the  Allahabad  High  Court  granting
disability pension was challenged before this Court.   In  the  said  matter
paragraph 7(b) of Appendix-II referred to in Regulations 48, 173 and 185  of
the 'Pension Regulations for the Army,  1961'.  In  support  of  the  appeal
before this  Court  in  Keshar  Singh(supra)  learned  Additional  Solicitor
General contended that the Division Bench of the High Court has  lost  sight
of Para 7(c) and  both  the  paragraphs  7(b)  and  7(c)  have  to  be  read
together. The relevant portion of the  judgment  of  this  Court  in  Keshar
Singh (supra) is quoted hereunder:
 
           "2. Background facts giving rise to the present  dispute  is  as
           follows:
                 The respondent was enrolled as Rifleman on  15.11.1976  and
           was discharged from Army on 18.10.1986. It was found that he was
           suffering from Schizophrenia  and  the  Medical  Board's  report
           indicated his non-suitability for continuance in  army.  Medical
           Board opined that the disability did not exist  before  entering
           service and it was not connected with  service.  An  appeal  was
           preferred  before  prescribed  appellate  authority  which   was
           dismissed on 16.4.1989. Respondent filed a writ  petition  which
           was allowed by learned Single Judge and as noted  above  by  the
           impugned judgment the special appeal was dismissed. Both learned
           Single Judge and  the  Division  Bench  held  that  it  was  not
           mentioned at the time of  entering  to  army  service  that  the
           respondent suffered from  Schizophrenia  and  therefore  it  was
           attributable to army service. Both learned Single Judge and  the
           Division Bench referred to para 7(b) of the Appendix II referred
           to in Regulations 48, 173 and 185 of  the  Pension  Regulations,
           1961 to hold that if any disease  has  led  to  the  individuals
           discharge it shall be ordinarily deemed to have  arisen  in  the
           service if no note of it was made at the  time  of  individual's
           acceptance for military service. Accordingly, it was  held  that
           the respondent was entitled to disability pension.
           3. In support of the appeal learned Additional Solicitor General
           submitted that both learned Single Judge and the Division  Bench
           have lost sight of para 7(c). Both 7(b) and 7(c) have to be read
           together. They read as follows"
              "7 (b) A disease which has led to an  individual's  discharge
              or death will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in  service
              if no note of it was made at the  time  of  the  individual's
              acceptance for military service. However, if medical  opinion
              holds for reasons to be stated, that the  disease  could  not
              have been detected on medical examination prior to acceptance
              for service the disease will not be  deemed  to  have  arisen
              during service.
              7(c) If a disease is accepted as having arisen in service, it
              must also be established  that  the  conditions  of  military
              service determined or contributed to the onset of the disease
              and that the conditions were due to the circumstances of duty
              in military service.""
 
12.   In their counter-affidavit filed by the respondents before this  Court
in the present case, it is accepted that old Rules 7(a),  (b)  and  7(c)  of
the erstwhile Rules/Regulations were taken into consideration by this  Court
in Keshar Singh (supra) which has  since been revised by Rule 14 of  revised
'Entitlement Rules for Casualty  Pensionary  Awards,  1982'.  For  the  said
reason, we are not relying on or referring to Rule  7(b)  and  7(c)  of  the
erstwhile Rules. According to the respondents, Rule 14(a), 14(b), 14(c)  and
14(d) of the "Entitlement Rules for  Casualty  Pensionary  Awards  to  Armed
Forces Personnel, 1982" as amended vide Government  of  India,  Ministry  of
Defence letter No.1(1)/81/D(Pen-C) dated 20th June, 1996 needs to  be  taken
into consideration along with the other  provisions  of  Entitlement  Rules,
1982.
 
13.   Per contra, according to the learned counsel for  the  appellant,  the
"Entitlement Rules  for  Casualty  Pensionary  Awards,  1982"  contained  in
Appendix-II of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 is applicable  and
not the Rules referred  to  and  quoted  in  the  counter-affidavit  by  the
respondents.
 
14.   There being difference in the two sets of the  Entitlement  Rules  for
Casualty Pensionary Awards referred to by the counsel  for  the  respondents
and the appellant, on the direction of  the  Court  photostat  copy  of  the
'Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961(Part-I)' along with  Appendix  (ii),
(referred to  in  Regulations  1948,  1973  and  1985),  'Guide  to  Medical
Officers (Military Pensions) 2002' published by  the  Ministry  of  Defence,
Government of India, New Delhi has been produced. We  also  called  for  the
Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 from Library which contains Appendix-
II- 'Entitlement  Rules  for  Casualty  Pensionary  Awards,  1982'  for  our
perusal, and we find that it  is  similar  to  the  photostat  copy  of  the
Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961(Part-I) published by the Ministry  of
Defence, Government of India, New Delhi. The respondents in  their  counter-
affidavit has not made clear as to when the Government  of  India,  Ministry
of Defence letter No.1(1)/81/D(Pen-C) dated 20th June, 1996 was notified  in
Gazette amending the Rules and why no such amendment has been shown  in  the
published Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982.  In  their
counter-affidavit they have not mentioned that the rules extracted in  their
counter-affidavit is true copy of its original.
 
15.   For the said reason, we will rely on the "Pension Regulations for  the
Army, 1961" and Appendix-II-  'Entitlement  Rules  for  Casualty  Pensionary
Awards, 1982' published by the Government of India,  we  will  also  discuss
the Rules 14(a), 14(b), 14 (c) and 14(d) as quoted  and  relied  on  by  the
respondents.
 
16.   Regulation 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army,  1961  relates  to
the primary conditions for the grant of  disability  pension  and  reads  as
follows:
 
           "Regulation  173.  Unless  otherwise  specifically  provided   a
           disability pension consisting of service element and  disability
           element may be granted to an individual who is  invalidated  out
           of service on account of a disability which is  attributable  to
           or aggravated by military service in non-battle casualty and  is
           assessed 20 per cent or over
 
                 The question whether a disability is  attributable  to  or
           aggravated by military service shall  be  determined  under  the
           rule in Appendix II."
 
17.   From a bare perusal of the Regulation  aforesaid,  it  is  clear  that
disability pension in normal course is to be granted to  an  individual  (i)
who is invalidated out of service  on  account  of  a  disability  which  is
attributable to or aggravated by military service and (ii) who  is  assessed
at 20% or over disability unless otherwise it is specifically provided.
 
18.   A disability is 'attributable to or aggravated  by  military  service'
to be determined  under  the  "Entitlement  Rules  for  Casualty  Pensionary
Awards, 1982', as shown in Appendix-II. Rule 5 relates to  approach  to  the
Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 based on  presumption
as shown hereunder:
 
                 "Rule5 . The approach to the  question  of  entitlement  to
                 casualty pensionary awards and evaluation  of  disabilities
                 shall be based on the following presumptions:
 
                 PRIOR TO AND DURING SERVICE
 
   a) member is presumed to have been in sound physical and mental condition
      upon entering except as to physical disabilities noted or recorded  at
      the time of entrance.
 
   b) In the event of his subsequently  being  discharged  from  service  on
      medical grounds any deterioration in his health which has taken  place
      is due to service."
 
      From Rule 5 we find that a general presumption is to be drawn  that  a
member is presumed to have been in sound physical and mental condition  upon
entering service except as to physical disabilities  noted  or  recorded  at
the time of entrance.  If a person is discharged  from  service  on  medical
ground for deterioration in his  health  it  is  to  be  presumed  that  the
deterioration in the health has taken place due to service.
 
19.   "Onus of proof" is not on claimant as  apparent  from  Rule  9,  which
reads as follows:
 
                 "Rule 9. ONUS OF PROOF- The claimant shall  not  be  called
                 upon to prove the conditions of entitlements.  He/she  will
                 receive the benefit of any reasonable doubt.  This  benefit
                 will  be  given  more  liberally  to   the   claimants   in
                 field/afloat service cases."
 
 
 
 
      From a bare perusal of Rule 9 it  is  clear  that  a  member,  who  is
declared disabled from service, is not required to prove his entitlement  of
pension and such pensionary benefits to  be  given  more  liberally  to  the
claimants.
 
20.    With  respect  to  disability  due  to  diseases  Rule  14  shall  be
applicable which as  per  the  Government  of  India  publication  reads  as
follows:
 
           "Rule 14. DISEASE- In respect of diseases,  the  following  rule
           will be observed:-
 
                 (a)Cases in which it  is  established  that  conditions  of
                 Military Service did not determine  or  contribute  to  the
                 onset of the disease but influenced the subsequent  courses
                 of the disease will fall for acceptance  on  the  basis  of
                 aggravation.
 
                 (b)A disease which has led to an individual's discharge  or
                 death will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in  service,
                 if no note of it was made at the time of  the  individual's
                 acceptance  for  military  service.  However,  if   medical
                 opinion holds, for reasons to be stated, that  the  disease
                 could not have been detected on medical  examination  prior
                 to acceptance for service, the disease will not  be  deemed
                 to have arisen during service.
 
                 (c)If a disease is accepted as having arisen in service, it
                 must also be established that the  conditions  of  military
                 service determined or  contributed  to  the  onset  of  the
                 disease  and  that  the  conditions   were   due   to   the
                 circumstances of duty in military service."
 
      As per  clause  (b)  of  Rule  14  a  disease  which  has  led  to  an
individual's discharge or death will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen  in
service, if no note  of  it  was  made  at  the  time  of  the  individual's
acceptance for military service.
 
      As per clause(c) of Rule 14 if a disease is accepted as having  arisen
in service, it must also be established  that  the  conditions  of  military
service determined or contributed to the onset of the disease and  that  the
conditions were due to the circumstances of duty in military service.
 
21.   If we notice Rule 14(a), 14(b), 14(c)  and  14(d)  as  quoted  by  the
respondents in their counter-affidavit, it  makes  no  much  difference  for
determination of issue. According to the  respondents,  Rule  14(a),  14(b),
14(c) and 14(d) as amended vide Government of  India,  Ministry  of  Defence
letter No.1(1)/81/D(Pen-C) dated 20th June, 1996 reads as follows:
 
           "Rule 14(a)- For acceptance of  a  disease  as  attributable  to
           military service, the following two conditions must be satisfied
           simultaneously:
 
   i) That the disease has arisen during the period of military service, and
 
  ii) That the disease has been caused by the conditions  of  employment  in
      military service.
 
           Rule 14(b)- If  medical  authority  holds,  for  reasons  to  be
           stated, that  the  disease  although  present  at  the  time  of
           enrolment could not have been detected  on  medical  examination
           prior to acceptance for service, the disease, will not be deemed
           to have arisen during service. In case where it  is  established
           that the military service did not contribute  to  the  onset  or
           adversely affect the course disease,  entitlement  for  casualty
           pensionary award will not be conceded even if  the  disease  has
           arisen during service.
 
           Rule 14(c)- Cases in which it is established that conditions  of
           military service did not determine or contribute to the onset of
           the  disease  but,  influenced  the  subsequent  course  of  the
           disease, will fall for acceptance on the basis of aggravation.
 
           Rule 14(d)- In case of congenital, hereditary, degenerative  and
           constitutional diseases which are detected after the  individual
           has joined service, entitlement to disability pension shall  not
           be conceded unless it is clearly established that the course  of
           such disease was adversely affected due to  factors  related  to
           conditions of military services."
 
22.   As per Rule 14(a) we notice  that  for  acceptance  of  a  disease  as
attributable to military service, conditions are to be  satisfied  that  the
disease has been arisen during the  military  service,  and  caused  by  the
conditions of employment in military service which is similar to Rule  14(c)
of the printed version as relied on by the appellant. Rule  14(b)  cited  by
the respondents is also similar to published Rule 14.
 
      Rule 14(c) cited by the respondents relates to the cases in  which  it
is established that conditions of military  service  did  not  determine  or
contribute to the onset  of  the  disease  but,  influenced  the  subsequent
course  of  the  disease,  will  fall  for  acceptance  on  the   basis   of
aggravation.
 
      Rule 14(d) cited by the respondents  relates  to  diseases  which  are
detected  after  the  individual  has  joined  the  service,  which  entails
disability pension but it is to be  established  that  the  course  of  such
disease was adversely affected due  to  factors  related  to  conditions  of
military service.
 
23.   If the amended version of Rule 14  as  cited  by  the  respondents  is
accepted to be the Rule applicable in the present case, even then  the  onus
of proof shall lie on the employer-respondents in terms of Rule  9  and  not
the claimant and in case of any reasonable doubt the benefit  will  go  more
liberally to the claimants.
 
24.   The Rules to be followed by Medical Board in disposal of special cases have been shown under Chapter VIII of the” General Rules of Guide to
Medical Officers (Military   Pensions)   2002. Rule   423   deals   with
"Attributability   to service" relevant of which reads as follows:
 
           "423(a)For the purpose of determining whether  the  cause  of  a
           disability  or  death  resulting  from  disease  is  or  is  not
           attributable to service, it  is  immaterial  whether  the  cause
           giving rise to the disability  or  death  occurred  in  an  area
           declared to be  a  Field Service/Active  Service  area  or  under
           normal peace conditions. It is however, essential to  establish
           whether the disability or death bore a  casual  connection  with
           the  service  conditions.   All   evidence   both   direct   and
           circumstantial  will  be  taken  into  account  and  benefit  of
           reasonable doubt, if any, will be given to the  individual.  The
           evidence to be accepted as reasonable doubt for the  purpose  of
           these instructions should be  of  a  degree  of  cogency,  which
           though not  reaching  certainty,  nevertheless  carries  a  high
           degree of probability. In this connection, it will be remembered
           that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond  a
           shadow of doubt.  If  the  evidence  is  so  strong  against  an
           individual as to leave only  a  remote  possibility  in  his/her
           favour, which can be dismissed with the sentence  "of course  it
           is possible but not in the least probable" the  case  is  proved
           beyond reasonable doubt. If on the other hand, the  evidence  be
           so evenly balanced as  to  render  impracticable  a  determinate
           conclusion one way or the other, then the case would be  one  in
           which the benefit of the doubt could be given more liberally  to
           the individual,  in  cases  occurring  in  Field  Service/Active
           Service areas.
 
           (c). The cause of a disability or death resulting from a disease
           will  be  regarded  as  attributable  to  Service  when  it   is
           established that  the  disease  arose  during  Service  and  the
           conditions  and  circumstances  of  duty  in  the  Armed  Forces
           determined and contributed to the onset of the  disease.  Cases,
           in which it is  established  that  Service  conditions  did  not
           determine  or  contribute  to  the  onset  of  the  disease  but
           influenced  the  subsequent  course  of  the  disease,  will  be
           regarded as aggravated by the service. A disease which  has  led
           to an individual's discharge or death will ordinarily be  deemed
           to have arisen in Service if no note of it was made at the  time
           of the individual's acceptance for Service in the Armed  Forces.
           However, if medical opinion holds, for reasons tobe stated  that
           the disease could not have been detected on medical  examination
           prior to acceptance for service, the disease will not be  deemed
           to have arisen during service.
 
           (d).The question, whether a disability or death  resulting  from
           disease is attributable to or aggravated by service or not, will
           be decided as regards its medical aspects by a Medical Board  or
           by the medical officer who  signs  the  Death  Certificate.  The
           Medical Board/Medical Officer will specify reasons for their/his
           opinion. The opinion of the Medical Board/Medical Officers,in so
           far as it relates to the actual cause of the disability or death
           and the circumstances in which it originated will be regarded as
           final.  The  question  whether  the  cause  and  the   attendant
           circumstances can be accepted as attributable  to/aggravated  by
           service for the purpose of pensionary benefits will, however, be
           decided by the pension sanctioning authority."
 
 
25.   Therefore, as per Rule 423 following procedures to be followed by the
Medical Board:
 
      (i) Evidence both direct and circumstantial to be taken into account
      by the Board and benefit of reasonable doubt, if any would go  to  the
      individual;
 
      (ii) a disease which has led to an  individual's  discharge  or  death
      will ordinarily be  treated to have been arisen in service, if no note
      of it was made at the time of individual's acceptance for  service  in
      Armed Forces.
 
      (iii) If the medical opinion holds that the  disease  could  not  have
      been detected on medical examination prior to acceptance  for  service
      and the disease will not be deemed to have been arisen during military
      service the Board is required to state the reason for the same.
 
26.   'Chapter II' of the Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pensions)  2002
relates to "Entitlement : General Principles".  In the opening paragraph  1,
it is made clear that the Medical Board should examine cases  in  the  light
of the etiology of the particular disease  and  after  considering  all  the
relevant particulars of a case, record their  conclusions  with  reasons  in
support, in clear terms and in a  language  which  the  Pension  Sanctioning
Authority would be able to appreciate fully in determining the  question  of
entitlement according to the rules. Medical officers should comment  on  the
evidence both for and against the concession of entitlement;  the  aforesaid
paragraph reads as follows:
 
           "1.   Although the certificate of a properly constituted medical
           authority vis-à-vis the invaliding disability, or  death,  forms
           the  basis  of  compensation  payable  by  the  government,  the
           decision to admit or refuse entitlement is not solely  a  matter
           which can be  determined  finally  by  the  medical  authorities
           alone.  It  may  require  also  the   consideration   of   other
           circumstances  e.g.  service  conditions,  pre-and  post-service
           history, verification  of  wound  or  injury,  corroboration  of
           statements, collecting and weighing the value of  evidence,  and
           in some instances,  matters  of  military  law  and  discipline.
           Accordingly, Medical Boards should examine cases in the light of
           the etiology of the particular disease and after considering all
           the relevant particulars of a  case,  record  their  conclusions
           with reasons in support, in clear terms and in a language  which
           the Pension Sanctioning Authority, a lay body, would be able  to
           appreciate fully in  determining  the  question  of  entitlement
           according to the rules.  In  expressing  their  opinion  Medical
           Officers should comment on the evidence both for and against the
           concession of entitlement. In this connection, it is as well  to
           remember that a bare medical opinion without reasons in  support
           will be of no value to the Pension Sanctioning Authority."
 
 
       Paragraph  6  suggests  the  procedure  to  be  followed  by  service
authorities if there is no note, or adequate note, in  the  service  records
on which the claim is based.
 
      Paragraph 7 talks of evidentiary value attached to  the  record  of  a
member's condition at  the  commencement  of  service,  .e.g.  pre-enrolment
history of an  injury,  or  disease  like  epilepsy,  mental  disorder  etc.
Further, guidelines have been laid down at paragraphs 8  and  9,  as  quoted
below:
 
           7.    Evidentiary value is attached to the record of a  member's
           condition at the commencement of service, and such  record  has,
           therefore, to be accepted unless any  different  conclusion  has
           been reached due to the inaccuracy of the record in a particular
           case or  otherwise.  Accordingly,  if  the  disease  leading  to
           member's invalidation out of service or death while in  service,
           was not noted  in  a  medical  report  at  the  commencement  of
           service, the inference would be that the  disease  arose  during
           the period of member's military service.  It  may  be  that  the
           inaccuracy or incompleteness  of  service  record  on  entry  in
           service was due to a non-disclosure of the  essential  facts  by
           the member, e.g., pre-enrolment history of an injury or  disease
           like epilepsy, mental disorder etc. It may also be that owing to
           latency or obscurity  of  the  symptoms,  a  disability  escaped
           detection on enrolment. Such lack of recognition may affect  the
           medical categorization of the member on enrolment  and/or  cause
           him to perform duties harmful to his condition. Again, there may
           occasionally  be  direct  evidence  of  the  contraction  of   a
           disability, otherwise than by service. In all such cases, though
           the disease cannot be considered to have been caused by service,
           the question of aggravation  by  subsequent  service  conditions
           will need examination.
 
                 The following are some of the  diseases  which  ordinarily
           escape detection on enrolment:-
 
                 (a)Certain congenital abnormalities which  are  latent  and
                 only discoverable on full investigations,  e.g.  CONGENITAL
                 DEFECT OF SPINE, SPINA BIFIDA, SACRALIZATION,
 
                 (b)Certain  familial   and   hereditary   diseases,   e.g.,
                 HAEMOPHILIA, CONGENTIAL SYPHILIS, HAEMOGIOBINOPATHY.
 
                 (C)Certain diseases of the heart and blood  vessels,  e.g.,
                 CORONORY ATHEROSCLEROSIS, RHEUMATIC FEVER.
 
                 (d)Diseases  which  may   be   undetectable   by   physical
                 examination on enrolment, unless adequate history is  given
                 at the time by  the  member,  e.g.,  GASTRIC  AND  DUODENAL
                 ULCERS, EPILEPSY, MENTAL DISORDERS, HIV INFECTIONS.
 
                 (e)  Relapsing  forms  of  mental  disorders   which   have
                 intervals of normality.
 
                 (f) Diseases which have periodic  attacks  e.g.,  BRONCHIAL
                 ASTHMA, EPILEPSY, CSOM ETC.
 
           8.    The question whether the invalidation or death of a member
           has resulted from service conditions, has to be  judged  in  the
           light of the record of the member's condition  on  enrolment  as
           noted in service documents and of all other  available  evidence
           both direct and indirect.
 
                 In addition to any documentary evidence  relative  to  the
           member's condition to entering the service and  during  service,
           the  member  must  carefully  and  closely  questioned  on   the
           circumstances which led  to  the  advent  of  his  disease,  the
           duration, the family history, his pre-service history,  etc.  so
           that all evidence in support or against the claim is elucidated.
           Presidents of Medical Boards should  make  this  their  personal
           responsibility and  ensure  that  opinions  on  attributability,
           aggravation or otherwise are supported by  cogent  reasons;  the
           approving authority should also be satisfied that this  question
           has been death with in such a way  as  to  leave  no  reasonable
           doubt.
 
           9.    On the question whether any persisting  deterioration  has
           occurred, it is to be remembered that invalidation from  service
           does  not  necessarily  imply  that  the  member's  health   has
           deteriorated  during  service.  The  disability  may  have  been
           discovered soon after joining and the member discharged  in  his
           own interest in order to prevent deterioration. In  such  cases,
           there may even have been a temporary worsening  during  service,
           but if the treatment given before discharge was  on  grounds  of
           expediency to  prevent  a  recurrence,  no  lasting  damage  was
           inflicted by service and there would be no ground for  admitting
           entitlement. Again a member may have been invalided from service
           because he is found so weak mentally that it  is  impossible  to
           make him an efficient soldier. This  would  not  mean  that  his
           condition has worsened during service, but only that it is worse
           than was realized on enrolment in the army.  To sum up, in  each
           case the question whether any persisting  deterioration  on  the
           available evidence which will vary according to the type of  the
           disability, the consensus of medical opinion   relating  to  the
           particular condition and the clinical history."
 
 
27.   Learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India relied on  decisions
of this Court in Om Prakash Singh vs. Union of India  and  others,(2010)  12
SCC 667;(2009) 9 SCC 140; (2010) 11 SCC 220, etc.  and submitted  that  this
Court has already considered the effect of Rule 5, 14a and 14(a)  and  14(b)
and held that the same cannot be read in isolation.  After  perusal  of  the
aforesaid decision we find that Rule 14(a), 14(b) and 14(c) as  noticed  and
quoted therein are similar to Rule 14 as  published  by  the  Government  of
India and not Rule 14  as  quoted  by  the  respondents  in  their  counter-
affidavit. Further, we find that the question as raised in the present  case
that in case no note of disease or  disability  was  made  at  the  time  of
individual's acceptance for military service, the Medical Board is  required
to give reasons in writing for coming to the finding that the disease  could
not have been detected on a medical examination prior to the acceptance  for
service was neither raised nor answered by this Court in those cases.  Those
were the cases which were decided on the facts of the individual case  based
on the opinion of the Medical Board.
 
28.   A conjoint reading of various provisions, reproduced above,  makes  it
clear that:
 
      (i)  Disability  pension  to  be  granted  to  an  individual  who  is
      invalidated  from  service  on  account  of  a  disability  which   is
      attributable to  or  aggravated  by  military  service  in  non-battle
      casualty and is assessed at  20%  or  over.  The  question  whether  a
      disability is attributable or aggravated by  military  service  to  be
      determined under "Entitlement Rules for  Casualty  Pensionary  Awards,
      1982" of Appendix-II (Regulation 173).
 
      (ii)  A member  is  to  be  presumed  in  sound  physical  and  mental
      condition upon entering service if there is no note or record  at  the
      time of entrance. In the event of his  subsequently  being  discharged
      from service on medical grounds any deterioration in his health is  to
      be presumed due to service. [Rule 5 r/w Rule 14(b)].
 
      (iii) Onus of proof is not on the claimant (employee),  the  corollary
      is that onus of proof that the condition for non-entitlement  is  with
      the employer. A  claimant  has  a  right  to  derive  benefit  of  any
      reasonable  doubt  and  is  entitled  for  pensionary   benefit   more
      liberally. (Rule 9).
 
      (iv)  If a disease is accepted  to  have  been  as  having  arisen  in
      service, it must also be established that the conditions  of  military
      service determined or contributed to the onset of the disease and that
      the conditions were due to  the  circumstances  of  duty  in  military
      service. [Rule 14(c)].
 
      (v)    If no note of any disability or disease was made at the time of
      individual's acceptance for military service, a disease which has  led
      to an individual's  discharge or death will be deemed to  have  arisen
      in service. [14(b)].
 
      (vi)   If medical opinion holds that the disease could not  have  been
      detected on medical examination prior to the  acceptance  for  service
      and that disease will not be deemed to have arisen during service, the
      Medical Board is required to state the reasons. [14(b)]; and
 
      (vii) It is mandatory for the Medical Board to follow  the  guidelines
      laid down in Chapter-II of the "Guide to Medical  (Military  Pension),
      2002 - "Entitledment : General Principles",  including  paragraph  7,8
      and 9 as referred to above.
 
29.   We, accordingly, answer both the questions in  affirmative  in  favour
of the appellant and against the respondents.
 
30.   In the present case it is undisputed that no note of any  disease  has
been recorded at the time of appellant's acceptance  for  military  service.
The respondents have failed to bring on record any document to suggest  that
the appellant was under treatment for such a disease or by hereditary he  is
suffering from such disease. In absence of any note in  the  service  record
at the time of acceptance of joining of appellant it was  incumbent  on  the
part of the Medical Board to call for records and look into the same  before
coming to an opinion that the  disease  could  not  have  been  detected  on
medical examination prior  to  the  acceptance  for  military  service,  but
nothing is on the record to suggest that any such record was called  for  by
the Medical Board or looked into it and no reasons  have  been  recorded  in
writing to come to  the  conclusion  that  the  disability  is  not  due  to
military service.  In fact, non-application of  mind  of  Medical  Board  is
apparent from Clause (d) of paragraph  2  of  the  opinion  of  the  Medical
Board, which is as follows:
 
            ____________________________________________________
 
           " (d) In the case of a disability under C the board should state
 
                 what exactly  in  their  opinion  is  the  cause  thereof.
           YES
 
                            Disability is not related to mil service"
         ________________________________________________________
 
31.   Paragraph 1 of 'Chapter  II'  -  "Entitlement  :  General  Principles"
specifically stipulates that certificate of a constituted medical  authority
vis-`-vis  invalidating  disability,  or   death,   forms   the   basis   of
compensation payable by the Government, the  decision  to  admit  or  refuse
entitlement is not solely a matter which can be determined  finally  by  the
medical authorities alone. It may require also the  consideration  of  other
circumstances  e.g.  service  conditions,  pre-and   post-service   history,
verification of wound or injury,  corroboration  of  statements,  collecting
and weighing the value of  evidence,  and  in  some  instances,  matters  of
military law and dispute.  For  the  said  reasons  the  Medical  Board  was
required to examine the cases in the light of  etiology  of  the  particular
disease and after considering all the relevant particulars  of  a  case,  it
was required to record its conclusion with  reasons  in  support,  in  clear
terms and language which the Pension Sanctioning Authority would be able  to
appreciate.
 
32.    In  spite  of  the  aforesaid  provisions,  the  Pension  Sanctioning
Authority failed to notice that the Medical Board had not given  any  reason
in support of its opinion, particularly  when  there  is  no  note  of  such
disease or disability available in the service record of  the  appellant  at
the time of acceptance for  military  service.  Without  going  through  the
aforesaid facts the Pension Sanctioning Authority  mechanically  passed  the
impugned order of rejection based on the report of  the  Medical  Board.  As
per Rules 5 and 9 of 'Entitlement  Rules  for  Casualty  Pensionary  Awards,
1982', the appellant is entitled for presumption and benefit of  presumption
in his favour.  In absence of any  evidence  on  record  to  show  that  the
appellant was suffering from "Genrealised seizure (Epilepsy)"  at  the  time
of acceptance of his service, it will be presumed that the appellant was  in
sound physical and mental condition at the time of entering the service  and
deterioration in his health has taken place due to service.
 
33.   As per Rule 423(a) of General Rules for the purpose of  determining  a
question whether the cause of a disability or death resulting  from  disease
is or is not attributable to service, it is  immaterial  whether  the  cause
giving rise to the disability or death occurred in an area declared to be  a
field  service/active  service  area  or  under  normal  peace   conditions.
"Classification   of  diseases"  have  been  prescribed  at  Chapter  IV  of
Annexure I; under paragraph 4  post  traumatic  epilepsy  and  other  mental
changes resulting from head injuries have been shown as one of the  diseases
affected by training,  marching,  prolonged  standing  etc.  Therefore,  the
presumption would be that the disability of  the  appellant  bore  a  casual
connection with the service conditions.
 
34.   In view of the finding as recorded above, we have  no  option  but  to
set aside the impugned order passed by the Division Bench dated  31st  July,
2009 in LPA No.26 of 2004 and uphold the  decision  of  the  learned  Single
Judge dated 20th May, 2004. The impugned order is set aside and  accordingly
the appeal is allowed. The respondents are directed  to  pay  the  appellant
the benefit in terms of the order passed by  the  learned  Single  Judge  in
accordance with law within three months if not yet paid, else they shall  be
liable to pay interest as per order passed by the learned Single  Judge.  No
costs.
 
 
    ..................................................................J.
                               (A.K. PATNAIK)
 
 
      ...............................................................J.
                              (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
NEW DELHI,
JULY 2, 2013.
============================================================================================

(SOURCE- VIA E-MAIL) 
 

18 comments:

  1. Sir, I retired on my own request as in the medical category 50% (P2). Sir is the disability pension is applicable for me? If applicable please tell me procedure to claim the same? Jai hind Sir. Hav Mohinder

    ReplyDelete
  2. My comment that who volunteerly discharged from the army is able to get dp has not published. please publish the same for my knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sir I was retired volunteerly on 31.8.2005 on completion of 22 years of service in the medical category P2 ie 50% disability. Sir, DP is applicable to me or not?

    ReplyDelete
  4. No one is able to reply my above three comments?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sir I have been boarded out of as a case of affective disorders depressive type on Completion of 19years8months16days service. My medical category at the time of discharge was EEE.Please inform me wheather I Wii get disability pension. On set of the disease handling of new assignment.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I, Nb Sub Chavan Surya Kantappa, one of the sufferer when Four med boards given 30% disability, including the Recat Med Bd(held at MH Kirkee on 31 Mar 2007) given 30% Disability But the Release Med Bd which held on 30 Dec 2007 made it Not Aggravated to Mil Service but at 30% Disability. Strange is that the composition of the Bd Members of Release Med Bd are all
    most the same of Recat Med Bd of 31 Mar 2007 . My two appeals were rejected by the Integrated HQ of Min of Def(Army). Request any one help me for escalate the matter to ARMY HQ/Supreme Court for getting disability pension. My cell No is 7387549933.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dear Sir,

    1. My service No is JC-185328 L,,Name - AJIT KUMAR KASHYAPI,Date of retirement – 30 Apr 1999.I was invalidated from service on account of disability without granting any disability pension 2(Two) years prior to the completion of full tenure. .I have been denied disability pension due to the remark ‘Neither attributed nor aggravated due to Military Service’ endorsed in my release medical board proceedings, although such disabilities occurred during my service tenure.
    2. It is noted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its Judgment in the case no Civil Appeal 4949 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No 2940 of 2010 (Dharamvir Singh vs UOI) upheld the judgment passed by the Single judge dated 20 May 2004. As elaborated in Para 28 and 29 of the said judgment, the court has made it absolutely clear that ‘if a person at the time of entry into service was in sound physical and mental health and no entry of any disability exists in his record; then any disability occurring to the individual would be deemed to have occurred in service and would be attributed to and aggravated to military service’ and therefore such a person would be entitled to disability pension if it is 20 % or more.
    3. In view of facts as stated above, it is requested that the my case of proceeded on retirement without getting disability pension could be reviewed and the disability pension on account of ‘NANA’ which has been denied to should be paid retrospectively.

    4. It is not to be expected to approach the ‘Courts’ to seek redressal for adissibility of the said disability pension, once the ratio has been established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the instant case. It will only increase the work load of the courts.
    5. It is to be informed you that I had written to my Records,AEC,Pachmarhi with a copy of the above the Hon’ble Supreme Court's judgement.But the Record has not replied so far.

    5. It is hoped that your guidance on the subject as requested above may please be given to this ignorant affected ‘Veteran’.

    Thanking you,

    Ajit Kumar Kashyapi
    Village - Mohanpur Paschimpara, Post Office – Sewli Telinipara
    District – North 24 Parganas, West Bengal - 700121

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sir,4 months left,I was expecting favourable advice in my favour.It is to info that I had approached to the Records,AEC,Pachmarhi(MP).No reply recd sofar.
      May I request once again to advice me.So that I can get my disability pension.
      Thanking you.
      With regards.

      Delete
    2. Kashyap. You have no option but to approach AFT Calcutta and you will get Disability pension which you are authorised

      Delete
  8. Sir I have been discharged from the services on account of disability. The Onset of disease took place in field station & And handling of the New assignment with out guide line and have no specialisation of the field.Aftertwo years upgraded during staying in peace Station But upgradation of just 6months release And posted An other Station.where IRequested for upgrading And upgraded to AYE Shaped.thereIworked for normal tenure. The after posting order Came for no.5Air Forces Hospital And relapse And discharged in medical Category EEE.Disabilty50% Nor attributed Nor aggributable to service.Now supreme Court disision.Can Iget disability pension.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sir I have been discharged from the services on account of disability. The Onset of disease took place in field station & And handling of the New assignment with out guide line and have no specialisation of the field.Aftertwo years upgraded during staying in peace Station But upgradation of just 6months release And posted An other Station.where IRequested for upgrading And upgraded to AYE Shaped.thereIworked for normal tenure. The after posting order Came for no.5Air Forces Hospital And relapse And discharged in medical Category EEE.Disabilty50% Nor attributed Nor aggributable to service.Now supreme Court disision.Can Iget disability pension.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dear Sir
    You file OA in AFT and will certainly get the favour order. The AFT is granting relief however the relief is limited to three year prior to filing the application in the OA. The law has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it is the department to prove that the disability was not due to military service.
    My sincere advise to file as soon as possible the application in AFT it is the best forum to get relief

    ReplyDelete
  11. I Ex Recruit M Epeneth 14230427Y, I was enrolled in the year 31 July 1979 in the Corps of Signals and was discharged on 03 Sept 1980 as invalided out of service by medical board(FITS)NYD under category EEE, at that time I was treated as ESM and given the Discharge Book,My appeal for Disability pension was replied as NANA, at present I want to know whether I am eligible for pension as well an Ex service man please. Yes Sir I am not eligible for pension, but is there any other facilities like getting exempted from professional tax, etc as par with ex serviceman as that time I came as an Ex service man please, any hope.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Muthu. You will have to approach AFT. You will get it

      Delete
    2. Thank you Sir I will do it please.

      Delete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It is noticed that only grievace by an ESM is published.Alongwith the post, I like to know the benificial reply.
    As my case,I retired (30th Apr 1999)on superanuation after serving 28yrs 3months in the rank of Subedar.I was granted 2yrs service extention but being med cat " BEE ",I was forcefully sent on pension establishment with NANA.Hence no med pension was given to me.Knowing the latest judgement by the honourable Supreme Court in favour of NANA,I had applied with a copy of the above judgement to Records AEC for clarification,but didn't respond.
    Would anybody like to advise me?

    ReplyDelete
  14. No one is responding I feel its a waste of comments.

    ReplyDelete