It would be of huge significance to note that the Chandigarh Regional Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) at Chandimandir in a remarkable, robust and rational oral judgment titled Navneet Singh Sindhu vs Union of India and others in OA 802 of 2022 that was pronounced early this year on March 6, 2023 and formally made available for public after being published just very recently on July 12, 2023 very commendably, courageously and convincingly decided to grant disability pension to a former Short Services Commissioned Officer after very rightly quashing a medical board report for being legally and factually unsustainable. In the fitness of things, the AFT very commendably held that it is absurd to conclude that a disability incurred by the officer cannot be attributed to military service because the same was incurred during posting in peace area. Very rightly so!
It merits mentioning here that the Judicial Member Hon’ble Mr Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary and Administrative Member Lt Gen (Dr) Ranbir Singh slammed the medical report for casually glossing over the irrefutable fact that the officer concerned who was released from service in 1988 did not have any delectable disease or disability at the time of his commission. It must be noted that the Bench very rightly noted in its order that, “In military service, a soldier is under stress and strain due to variety of reasons i.e. climatic, geographic and being away from the company of family members, hence the origin of the disability in a peace area or field area is not of much consequence as provided in rules.” These observations were made by the AFT while granting the former officer disability at 50 percent of basic pay with effect from May 2008 till life. The Central Government was directed by AFT to compute and release the amount due so far within three months. It was made clear by the AFT that the amount due will attract an interest of 8 percent per annum till its date of its realization, if not paid on time. The AFT relied on several Apex Court precedents to note that rejecting the disability claims was wrong when it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that he had no medical issue while joining the Army. The AFT therefore thus very rightly disposed of the application in his favour.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced oral judgment authored by the Judicial Member Hon’ble Mr Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary and Administrative Member Lt Gen (Dr) Ranbir Singh of the Chandigarh Regional Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) at Chandimandir sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “By means of the present application, following relief(s) have been sought to be granted:-
a) to grant the applicant disability pension w.e.f. 02.05.2008 by setting aside that part of Medical Board proceedings whereby the disability incurred upon by him in peace area has been held to be neither attributable nor aggravated by military service;
b) to extend the benefits of rounding of by taking the disability @ 50% against 20% for life;
c) to grant any other & further relief as this Tribunal deem fit and proper in the given facts and circumstances of this case.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench of AFT envisages in para 2 that, “The facts in a nutshell are that the applicant Capt Navneet Singh (Retd) was commissioned as a “Short Service Commissioned Officer” in the Indian Army on 26.08.1982 and released from service on 17.04.1988 after completion of his term of engagement in low medical category for the disability “LABILE HYPERTENSION”. Before his release from service, despite being in low medical category his Release Medical Board was not conducted to assess the extent of his disability. While the Respondents kept communicating with each other for conduct of the medical board, a proper board was finally conducted only on directions of this Tribunal in the first round of litigation. The medical board assessed his disability as 20% for life but declared the same as “neither attributable to, nor aggravated by military service” thereby resulting in the rejection of his claim for grant of disability pension. The applicant then filed first appeal against the rejection of his claim qua disability pension which was rejected on 05.09.2019. Thereafter, the applicant filed second appeal against rejection of his first appeal, which too was rejected. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the rejection of his disability pension claim, he preferred this application for the redressal of his grievances in this second round of litigation.”
Do note, the Bench of AFT notes in para 3 that, “It is worth noticing here that during the course of his service, the applicant extensively served in field and operational areas of Ladakh region in J&K and also in the State of Punjab during the peak of terrorism. He was also deployed on border outposts as becomes clear from a perusal of Annexure A-11 dated 18-02-2021 which is a document issued by the Respondents.”
It cannot be glossed over that the Bench points out in para 4 that, “The respondents when put to notice have contested and resisted the claim of the applicant on the grounds inter alia that the disability in the case of the applicant is “neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service”, hence his case for the grant of disability pension has been rightly rejected. Its onset is also stated to be in peace area, although the said statement is contrary to the record of the Respondents themselves (Annexure A-11).”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 5 that, “Learned counsel representing the applicant has submitted that the prayers made in this application are squarely covered in his favour by series of decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including Dharamvir Singh Vs Union of India (2013) 7 SCC 316, Three Judge Bench decision in Civil Appeal 2337/2009 Union of India Vs Chander Pal decided on 18-09-2013, Union of India Vs Rajbir Singh (2015) 12 SCC 264, Union of India Vs Angad Singh Titaria (2015) 12 SCC 257, Union of India Vs Manjeet Singh (2015) 12 SCC 275, Civil Appeal 4409/2011 Ex Hav Mani Ram Bhaira Vs Union of India decided on 11-02-2016, Civil Appeal 1695/2016 Satwinder Singh Vs Union of India decided on 11-02-2016 and Ex Gnr Laxmanram Poonia Vs Union of India (2017) 4 SCC 697.”
Quite significantly, the Bench then minces just no words to propound in para 30 that, “After having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel on both sides and the law laid down by the Apex Court in various judgments cited (supra), it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that at the time the applicant entered into military service, the disability did not exist. Therefore, we are not satisfied with the opinion that the disability is “neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service”, recorded by the Release Medical Board for the reason that at the time the applicant was commissioned in the Army, no such disease could be detected by the Medical Board which had conducted his medical examination, and in such circumstances, the disability is deemed to be attributable to, or at least aggravated by military service, as has been held by the Apex Court.”
Most significantly and most forthrightly, the Bench mandates in para 31 holding that, “How the disease was not connected with military service, the Board has failed to record cogent and plausible reasons. The only explanation that the disability having incurred upon in a “peace area” and thus unconnected with the service rendered hence neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, is absurd and also cryptic. The same even is also against the record and against the rules and judicial interpretation, hence not sustainable in the eyes of law. The opinion that the onset of the disability was in “peace area”, and as such the same is not attributable to or aggravated by military service, is not based on sound and cogent reasoning. Above all, in military service, a soldier is under stress and strain due to variety of reasons i.e. climatic, geographic and being away from the company of family members, hence the origin of the disability in a peace area or field area is not of much consequence as provided in rules, interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also noticed hereinabove while making reference to the observations of the Raksha Mantri’s Committee of Experts qua this aspect of the matter. In fact, the Committee of Experts has taken into account the effect of stress & strain of military service on the health of troops, besides the law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court and other practical realities in the life of soldiers.”
To be sure, the Bench then further adds in para 32 that, “The present rather is a case which is squarely covered in favour of the applicant by the ratio of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh’s case and other judgments cited supra.”
More to the point, it would be germane to note that the Bench then clearly holds in para 33 that, “Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also the rule and the attending circumstances, the rejection of the claim of the applicant for grant of disability pension to the applicant is neither legally nor factually sustainable. The applicant, therefore, is entitled to the grant of disability pension.”
Most commendably and as a corollary, the Bench then directs in para 34 that, “For all the reasons, hereinabove, this application succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. The proceedings of the Release Medical Board to the extent of declaring the disability “Labile Hypertension” incurred upon by the applicant as “neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service” and subsequent rejection of his claim for the grant of disability pension is quashed and set aside. The applicant is held entitled to disability pension @ 50% as against 20% after being rounded off as per policy and the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 418/2012 titled Union of India Vs Ram Avtar decided on 10.12.2014 for life w.e.f. 02.05.2008. The due and admissible monetary benefits up to date be calculated and released to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by learned Central Government Counsel/OIC, Legal Cell, failing which together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of this order till realization of the entire amount.”
In conclusion, we thus see that the Regional Bench of the AFT in Chandigarh at Chandimandir is spot on in concluding that it would be absurd to say that peace-posting disability is not attributable to military service. Moreover, the officer career profile shows that he has spent maximum time on border in Ladakh region of J&K and in Punjab during the peak of terrorism. The AFT has also made it indubitably clear that the origin of the disability in a peace area or field area is not of much consequence as provided in rules. No denying it!
