O.A. No. 168 of 2016. Case: Signalman Prasannan N.P. Vs Union of India and Ors.. Armed Forces Tribunal
| Case Number | O.A. No. 168 of 2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant:T.R. Jagadeesh, Adv. and For Respondents: S. Prasanth, Central Government Counsel |
| Judges | S.S. Satheesachandran, J. (Member (J)) and Vice Admiral M.P. Muralidharan, AVSM & BAR, NM, Member (A) |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Judgement Date | December 13, 2016 |
| Court | Armed Forces Tribunal |
Order:
Vice Admiral M.P. Muralidharan, AVSM & BAR, NM, Member (A), (Regional Bench, Kochi)
-
The Original Application has been filed by Prasannan NP, Signalman, No. 14218805 of the Corps of Signals, essentially seeking disability pension or in the alternative for grant of service element of disability pension in terms of Regulation 186(2) of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961.
-
The applicant was enrolled in the Army on 27 May 1972 and was invalided out of service with effect from 01 June 1981 (Annexure-A2) after serving for 08 years and 82 days. The Medical Board held at the time of his discharge assessed him to have disability "Ischemic Heart Disease" (IHD), which was assessed at 30% for two years. However, the disability was held as neither attributable to nor aggravated by Military Service (Annexure-A1). He was not granted any disability pension.
-
Shri TR Jagadeesh, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant's claim for disability pension on his discharge from his service was adjudicated by PCDA (P) and rejected as the disability was considered as not attributable to Military Service (Annexure-A3). Since the applicant did not receive any information at that stage he could not prefer any appeal against the rejection of his claim for disability pension and later obtained the papers through RTI Act. The learned counsel further submitted that the applicant was fully fit at the time of joining service. During the course of his tenure in the Army, he served in areas with adverse climatic conditions and in hostile situations and the IHD was due to stress and strain of Military Service. Therefore, the finding of the Release Medical Board that his disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by Military Service is incorrect. Learned counsel also submitted that in accordance with Rule 14(b) of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, any disease which led to his discharge will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service, if no note of it was made at the time of entry into service.
-
Learned counsel further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dharam Vir Singh v. Union of India and Others, (2013) 7 SCC 316, held that a member is presumed to be in fit medical condition, if no note of any disability was recorded at the time of his entry, and hence any deterioration of his health is attributable to service. The same principles were reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India & Another v. Rajbir Singh, Civil Appeal No. 2904 of 2011. Learned counsel further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court had also held in Veer Pal Singh v. Union of India & Others 2013 (8) SCC 83, that there is nothing like exclusion of judicial review of the decision taken by a Medical Board.
-
The learned counsel further submitted that while the Release Medical Board had assessed the disability of the applicant for a period of two years, no Re-survey Medical Board was held on the expiry of two years and the applicant is still suffering from heart disease. Even if it is assumed that the disability of the applicant is now below 20%, the applicant is entitled to service element of pension in terms of Regulation 186 (2) of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961. The learned counsel therefore prayed that if the applicant is not granted disability pension he may at least be given the benefit of service element in terms of Regulation 186(2).
-
The respondents, on the other hand, contended that the applicant who was discharged in 1981, was not granted disability pension as his disability was considered neither attributable to nor aggravated by Military Service. The applicant did not prefer any appeal on his being denied disability pension and a belated request was made by him after nearly 34 years seeking information under the RTI Act for his...
To continue reading
Request your trial