Court Army Soldier Denied Disability Pension Eye Condition

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has upheld an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) granting disability pension to a former Army soldier who had developed an eye condition after 14 years of service, noting that the authorities had wrongly denied... The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has upheld an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) granting disability pension to a former Army soldier who had developed an eye condition after 14 years of service, noting that the authorities had wrongly denied linking his disability to military service. A bench of Justices Sindhu Sharma and Shahzad Azeem observed that the Medical Review Board had already recorded that the disability arose during service, and the later decision denying a link to military service was not properly reasoned and was unconvincing. “It is not in dispute that the respondent developed the disability during service after more than 14 years of enrolment. On the contrary, the initial medical board had recorded that the disability was contracted during service and was not within the control of the respondent. The subsequent denial of attributability lacks adequate reasoning and does not inspire confidence,” the May 30 order noted. Justices Sindhu Sharma and Shahzad Azeem upheld AFT's order in favour of a former Army Soldier. ‘Respondent developed eye condition’ The respondent had joined the Indian Army on July 23, 1977, and during his service, he developed an eye condition called Hypermetropic Amblyopia (right eye), which was detected in 1991 while he was posted in Namkum. He was placed in low medical category ‘CEE’ (temporary) with effect from December 11, 1991, and later downgraded to permanent low medical category ‘CEE’. The initial medical board recorded that the disability was contracted during service and not within the control of the respondent. Owing to his permanent low medical category, the respondent was discharged from service on December 31, 1993, under the Rules of the Army Rules, 1954. He was granted service pension with effect from January 1, 1994. However, the Release Medical Board assessed his disability at 15-19 per cent for two years and opined that it was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service (NANA). Consequently, his claim for disability pension was rejected by the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) or PCDA (P), Allahabad, on December 13, 1994, and his first appeal was also rejected on November 1, 1996. Also Read | Delhi High Court orders SBI to review promotion policy over visual impairment discrimination bias Subsequently, after obtaining relevant documents through RTI, the respondent submitted a demand notice, which was rejected on December 28, 2018. He then filed an original application before the Armed Forces Tribunal, which was disposed of on March 27, 2019, with directions to conduct a Re-Survey Medical Board (RSMB). The RSMB, conducted on February 22, 2020, assessed the respondent’s disability at 20 per cent for life. Despite the reassessment, the PCDA (P), Allahabad again rejected his claim on September 29, 2021, on the ground that the