Major Anish Muralidhar v. Lt. Col. Manvir Sharma

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 17001/2024 & CM APPL. 72080/2024

2. This petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 11.09.2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (in short, ‘Tribunal’) in Original Application (in short, ‘OA’) 865/2021 titled Lt Col Manvir Sharma vs. Union of India & Ors. whereby the learned Tribunal allowed the OA filed by the respondent herein with the following directions: “25. The applicant is thus entitled to the grant of the disability element of pension for all the three disabilities assessed compositely @ 64% for life which in terms of the verdict of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. Ram Avtar in Civil Appeal NO. 418/2012 dated 10.12.2014 is rounded off to 75% for life from the date of discharge.

26. The respondents are thus directed to calculate, sanction and issue the necessary PPO to the applicant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the amount of arrears shall be paid by the respondents, failing which the applicant will be entitled for interest @6% p.a. from the date of receipt of copy of the order by the respondents.”

3. The respondent was enrolled in the Army Postal Service on 03.01.1987, and was commissioned in service on 05.07.2003. It was the case of the respondent that in December, 2006, he was diagnosed with Recurrent Acute Pancreatitis and was placed in a low medical category S1H1A1P3(T-12)E[1]. He was later upgraded to Shape-1A category on 02.10.2007. Thereafter, while being posted at Dinjan, he was diagnosed as suffering from Recurrent Acute Pancreatitis, Hypertriglyceridemia, and Diabetes Mellitus, and was again placed in a low medical category P-3(T-24), in January, 2009. He was later found to be suffering from Diabetes Mellitus Type-II on 25.09.2012 and with primary hypertension in January, 2013, while being posted at Udhampur (J&K), which is a field area. His repeated medical boards opined that the disability suffered by him was aggravated by service. In fact, in the Medical Board proceedings dated 04.10.2012, it was further categorically opined that the Recurrent Acute Pancreatitis suffered by the respondent was due to an infection contracted in service. In spite of these repeated medical board proceedings, the Release Medical Board, in its report dated 22.11.2019, opined that while the disabilities of Diabetes Mellitus and Primary Hypertension are aggravated by service, the disability of Recurrent Acute Pancreatitis is not. The case of the respondent was thereafter processed by the petitioners themselves for release of the disability pension to the respondent for Diabetes Mellitus and Primary Hypertension, aggregating to 44% for life. It appears that there were some jurisdictional issues between the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (in short, ‘PCDA’) (Pensions) and the Army Headquarters in the Adjutant General’s Branch, because of which the disability pension of the respondent even to this limited extent was not released. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent approached the learned Tribunal inter alia not only seeking the release of disability pension for Diabetes Mellitus and Primary Hypertension but also for Recurrent Acute Pancreatitis, which he claimed was aggravated due to military service.

4. As noted hereinabove, the learned Tribunal has allowed the OA filed by the respondent herein.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in relying upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. (2013) 7 SCC 316, to grant relief to the respondent therein for the disease of Recurrent Acute Pancreatitis. He submits that the Medical Board proceedings cannot be interfered with by the learned Tribunal unless it is shown that the same suffers from any procedural irregularity or arbitrariness. He further submits that in the present case, the Release Medical Board had considered the service profile of the respondent before rejecting his claim for disability pension on account of the disability of Recurrent Acute Pancreatitis.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent, who appears on advance notice, submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly directed the petitioners to release the disability pension to the respondent, including for the disease of Recurrent Acute Pancreatitis. He has drawn our attention to the repeated Medical Board proceedings conducted year after year, which had consistently opined that the disability of Recurrent Acute Pancreatitis was aggravated by service.

7. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties.

8. In the present case, as is evident from the above, the disability of the Recurrent Acute Pancreatitis suffered by the respondent was discovered in 2006, when he was posted at Delhi. Thereafter, he was placed in a low medical category, however, his medical category was later upgraded to Shape-1A. The disability again resurfaced in the year 2009, when the respondent was posted at Dinjan, which is a counter insurgency operational area. Thereafter, year after year, the Medical Boards have opined that the disabilities suffered by the respondent, including Recurrent Acute Pancreatitis, were aggravated by service.

9. We reproduce the relevant findings of the Medical Boards as under: Dated 05.02.2010:

10. The Release Medical Board, however, in its report dated 30.12.2019, opined as under:- “PART VII OPINION OF THE MEDICAL BOARD (a) Please endorse diseases/disabilities in chronological order of occurrence Disability Attributable to service (Y/N) Aggravated by service (Y/N) Detailed Justification (a) RECURRENT ACUTE PANCREATITIS N N Onset of disability during Jan 2009 at Dinjan(CI-Ops). On scrutiny of all old medical documents & spl opinions, there is no evidence of etiology of disability being cholelithiasis, infection, post surgery sequelae, post (ERCP) or due to drugs. The dis is hypertriglyceridemia included, hence NANA vide para

59 Chapter VI of GMO 2008. (b) TYPE II DIABETES MELLITUS (ICD E- 11.9) N Y Onset of disability during Sep 2012 at Udhampur (CI Ops). The disability occurred while serving in CI-Ops area, hence aggravation is conceded vide Para 26, Chapter VI of GMO 2008.

(c) PRIMARY N Y Onset of disability during Jan