08.012019 M.A. No. 880 of 2017 : By virtue 0f this application, the applicant seeks condonation of delay of 8910 days in ling the present 0A. In view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Tarsem Singil (2009) (1) AISLJ 371, delay in ling the OA is condoned. However, if the applicant is held entitled to the disability pension, arrears will be restricted L0 three years only prior to the date of ling the OA. Accordingly, M.A, No. 880 of 201 7 stands disposed of O.A. No. 1199 of 2017: The applicant, having been found medically and physically t, was enrolled in the Indian Army on 15.061971 (LA. N0 1199 of 201 7, 08 [ll 2019 in the trade of General Soldier. He was discharged from the service in low medical category CEE [Permanent] on 18.02.1993. The IMB assessed the applicants disability COMPLEX PARTIAL SEIZURES (OLD 345) (V-67) @ 20% for two years, but opined that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by the military service.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the instant matter is squarely covered by a catena of decisions of the Honble Supreme Court including Dharamvir Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors. {2013) 7 SCC 316, Union 0t India and Ors. Vs. Railn'r Singh (2015) 12 SCC 264 and Union of India and Ors. Vs. Angad Singh Titaria (2015) 12 SCC
257. Further, the claim of the applicant is also supported by relevant rules.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the applicant is not entitled to the relief claimed since the IMB, being an Expert Body, found the disability Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated by Military Service?
4. Having heard learned counsel on both sides, we are 0f the view that the case in hand is squarely covered by the decisions referred to hereinabove. In Dharamvir Singh (supra), the Honble Supreme Court held that any disability sustained O.A.Nn.1190f 2017*084112019 during the course of Military Service will be attributed to service conditions unless the disability was such that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination before a person is selected for Defence Service and furthermore before arriving at a conclusion, the Release Medical Board should have assigned reasons, in writing, that the disability Was not due to Military Service. There is no dispute with regard tn the fact that when the applicant entered into service, he was not suffering from any disease and that the disability in question was detected/sustained only during the course of his Military Service.
5. The matter for implementation of orders of the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of Dharamvir Singh (supra) in respect of Armed Forces Personnel in NANA cases was taken up with the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance for consideration. Accordingly, Ministry of Defence by their letter dated 29" June, 2017 sent to the Chief of Staff of Army, Navy and Air Force for implementation of the orders of Honble Supreme Court, has laid down the following essential parameters for allowing disability pension:
I. The question whether a disability is attributable or aggravated by military service is to be determined under Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards 1 982.
0A No. 1199 of 2017* 08."12019
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.
III. If no note of any disability or disease was made at the time of individuals acceptance for military service, a disease which has laid to an individuals discharge or death will be deemed to have arisen in the service.
IV. 1f 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.
6. In the light of the preceding paragraphs and essential parameters given aforesaid, we hereby sot aside the impugned order rejecting the claim of the applicant for disability pension and hold that he is entitled to disability element of pension from the date of discharge @ 20% for two years.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that for any future period, he will make a representation to the Competent GA. Nov 1199 of 2017* 08.01.1019 Authority, Which, if made, may be considered according to the existing rules.
8. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to release the arrears Within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the arrears shall carry interest at the rate of 8% per annurn.
9. The OA stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.
10. A11 other applications, if any pending, also stand disposed of. . SANJIV CHACHRA] MEMBER (A) / ng/ O.A.N0.11990f2017ef73072019