Lt. Col. (Retd.) Rs Rana v. Union Of India & Others

Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was granted Commission on 13.06.1981 and therefore, became officer in the military service. In the year 1997 the petitioner suffered from the disease “Schizo Affective Disorder” and initially put in low medical category S-3 and then S-2 (Permanent). In the month of August 2005, the petitioner suffered from Primary Hypertension and for this disease was put in low medical category P-3 (Temporary) and subsequently in category P-2 (Permanent) in the month of February 2007. The petitioner suffered from Fracture Lateral Malicious (Lt) Tand Posterior Malicious (Lt). According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner could not have been posted in non-peace area, but he was posted in non-peace area. Since the petitioner was not in a position to bear with the burden, therefore, he sought voluntary retirement from service. The petitioner was released from service on 31.07.2007. The petitioner was brought before the Release Medical Board for assessment of petitioner's medical condition as well as assessment of his percentage of disability. The Medical Board, in first page of its report, in column 20, recorded that the petitioner's disability is Primary Hypertension was due to stress and strain of military service, but in concluding para of the report, petitioner's disability of Primary Hypertension was declared neither attributable to nor aggravated by service. The petitioner's percentage of disability for “Schizo Affective Disorder” was assessed at 30%, for Fractures (referred above) at 20% and in composite assessment, it was recorded as 50%. The petitioner was held eligible for disability pension to 50% only because of the reason that Medical Board in its concluding opinion did not find any connection of Primary Hypertension with petitioner's military service. The petitioner since has been given 50% of disability pension in place of 80%, therefore, the petitioner is aggrieved and has preferred this OA.

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Medical Board wrongly rejected the petitioner's claim for disability pension on account of disability due to Primary Hypertension. It is submitted that such stand is contrary to the regulations as well as contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharamvir Singh v. UOI, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 316. It is also submitted that Primary Hypertension is included in the list of diseases given in Guide to Medical Officers for Military Service, which disease may occur due to the military service, which is clear from the Guide to Medical Officer Military Service Condition 2002, therefore, it was the duty of the Medical Board to give reasons why such disease is not attributable to or aggravated by the military service. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to complete disability pension to the extent of 80% in place of 50% as awarded. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is also entitled to rounding of disability pension from 80% to 100% in view of Govt. of India's letter dated 30.01.2001 as well as letter dated 15.09.2014.

3. Learned counsel for the Union of India submitted that the petitioner in his OA specifically has not challenged the findings of the Medical Board by which the petitioner's disability has been declared having no connection with the military service and it was justified decision of the Medical Board.

4. We considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the Medical Board proceedings, copy of which has been placed on record. It appears from the Medical Board proceedings, specifically it has been observed that the disease Primary Hypertension is due to strain and stress of the military service and the petitioner has been advised to take care to prevent further aggravation of the disabilities. In addition to above already recorded observations about the disease Primary Hypertension and in spite of specific inclusion of the said disease in the Guide for Medical Officers, the Medical Board did not give any reason for the petitioner's Primary Hypertension as not connected with the petitioner's military service. There is no reason for medical opinion denying the petitioner's claim of disability pension on account of the disease Primary Hypertension. Therefore, this OA deserves to be allowed.

5. Hence OA is allowed to the extent that the petitioner is entitled to disability pension @ 80% since the petitioner approached the Tribunal after inordinate delay, therefore, petitioner will be entitled to arrears of past three years with interest @ 12% p.a.

6. So far as petitioner's claim of the rounding of pension is concerned, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, the case of Army personnel who sought premature retirement is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

7. In view of the above reasons, the issue of rounding of pension is left open. The petitioner will be free to submit a representation to the respondents, if petitioner's grievance survives. If petitioner is not granted relief, petitioner will be free to approach the Tribunal by filing a fresh OA.

8. Order be given Dasti.

9. Learned counsel for Union of India orally prayed for grant of leave to appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We are of the view that no question of law of public importance is involved in the matter and hence the prayer for grant of leave to appeal is rejected.