Heard the counsel for parties. The petitioner was enrolled on 31.12.1987 and was invalided out on 12.06.2015 with three disabilities namely URETERIC CALCULUS, LOW BACKACHE & NEUROSIS. The petitioners disabilities were examined by the Invalidating Medical Board thrice on 24.04.1992, obviously before his invalidment, then after his invalidment on 13.10.1997 and 31.03.2001. The petitioners disability, Neurosis was found by the three Medical Boards having no casual connection with his military service. Therefore, disability was not taken into account while granting petitioners disability pension. In first Medical Board all the three disabilities assessed to be 20% each since Neurosis was not taken into account, therefore the petitioners disability was assessed to be 40%. In the 1997 Medical Board Proceedings, the petitioners disabilities were assessed 6 to 10% each disability with disease Neurosis has no connection with the petitioners military service by taking into account other two disabilities the petitioners composite disability was assessed to be 20%. Accordingly he was given benefit of disability pension. In the Medical Board Proceedings of 27.03.2001, it appears that separately, the percentage has not been mentioned with respect to the individual disability as well as the composite disability which may be due to accepting the percentage of disability of previous Medical Board which was held in 1997 and petitioners disability was assessed as 20% for five years.
2. In view of , Government of India letter dated 07.02.2007, para 10, last decision on disability of the Medical Board is the final opinion and no further Medical Board is needed, unless it is requested by the petitioner himself
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Medical Boards committed grave error by excluding the petitioners Neurosis disease from the category of diseases attributable to or aggravated due to his military service and this mistake was committed by all the three Medical Boards. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners disability for Neurosis be accepted as disease aggravated by petitioners military service and therefore the petitioner should have been given of 60% of the disability pension. It is also submitted that the said percentage should not have been reduced to 6-10% for each disability by the subsequent Medical Board of 1997 and 2001 Board.
4. Learned counsel for UOI submitted that the petitioners OA may be dismissed on the ground that in view of the Government letter dated 07.02.2001, petitioner himself could have requested for reassessment by Medical Board which he never requested for and therefore 2001 Medical Board proceedings attained finality. It is also submitted that petitioners disease Neurosis had no casual connection with petitioners military service. It is also submitted that if the petitioners disability is accepted having connection with petitioners military service then as per the Medical Boards Proceedings of 1997 and 2001, the petitioners disability even by taking arithmetical sum can be taken 30% which can be rounded off up to 50% and therefore petitioner cannot get any relief as disability pension having already rounded off as 50% and given to the petitioner at the rate of 50%.
5. We considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and peruse the record. It is not disputed that the petitioner was discharged on 12.06.1992, rather was invalided out because of the medical disabilities. Each disability caused only 20% disability to the petitioner in the opinion of the first Medical Board in 1992. The petitioners disease Neurosis was not accepted having connection with the petitioners military. Therefore, the petitioner was accorded 40% disability. This disability percentage was reduced in view of the Medical Board of the year 1997 wherein petitioners three disabilities have been assessed resulting into disability 6-10% for each disability. The petitioners disability of Neurosis was not found having connection with the petitioners military service. This opinion was again accepted in the year 2001.
6. The petitioner filed one Writ Petition before the Honble Delhi High Court CW 5156/2002 wherein petitioner submitted that respondents have not decided petitioners representation against the denialof the disability. The Honble Delhi High Court vide order dated 20.08.2002 directed the respondent to decide the petitioners representation. According to the petitioner in spite of the order passed by the High Court the petitioners representation was not decided by the respondents. According to the learned counsel for the respondents the petitioner representation was decided on 14.02.2002 and consequential PPO was issued.
7. Be it as it may be, the petitioner approached this Tribunal after almost 12 years from the decision of the Honble Delhi High Court dated 20.008.2002, but that delay, we are not considering against the petitioner. Therefore we are considering the petitioners case on merits.
8. Even if we accept the petitioners disability Neurosis had connection with the petitioners military service it may have been aggravated due to the military service, even then the petitioner failed to make out any case because of the reason that the petitioners composite disability if increased by 10% by accepting Neurosis has connection with the petitioners service then also composite disability will remain at 30% on the basis of which the petitioner can get rounding off of disability pension to 50% only which the petitioner is getting. There is no reason for us to interfere in the percentage of disability determined by the two Medical Boards above.
11. In view of the above reasons we do not find any merit in this OA. Hence, this OA is dismissed.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought grant of leave to appeal under Section 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. We are of the considered opinion that no question of law of public importance is involved, hence prayer for leave to appeal is refused. (PRAKASH TATIA) CHAIRPERSON (SANJIV LANGER) MEMBER Dated:12.05.2015