(Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Aravind Kumar, JJ.)
Sudesh Singh _____________________________________ Appellant;
v.
Union of India and Others ________________________ Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal No. 1670/2010, decided on May 9, 2024
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. This appeal arises out of the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi1 dated 28.10.2009 in O.A. No. 104 of 2009.
2. On 31.01.1972, the appellant’s husband was commissioned as 2nd Lieutenant in the Grenadier Regiment of the Infantry Battalion of the Indian Army. In 1987, while serving the Indian Army, he was posted in Sri Lanka as a part of the Indian Peace Keeping Force. During that time, his left knee got injured, as a result of which, he was declared as a ‘Battle Causality’ on 27.10.1987.
3. Two years later, on 27.07.1989, the Medical Board diagnosed his condition as “sprain medical collateral ligament (LT) Knee (old)” and it was declared that his disability will get aggravated if he performs a duty which involves crawling, jumping, long marching and hill climbing. He was, however, declared fit for all non-combat duties which do not involve the afore-mentioned activities. Under these circumstances, the appellant’s husband was put on ‘low medical category’.
4. For the period from 01.12.1991 to March, 1994, the appellant’s husband was posted in Arunachal Pradesh [12 Grenadiers unit located at Khalung Zahung] which is a high-altitude posting. While serving in Arunachal Pradesh, the Medical Board conducted an assessment on 28.12.1991, where the appellant’s husband was diagnosed with a principal disability of ‘ostro-arthitis left knee 715’ which was aggravated and attributed due to war injury. On 29.12.1993, the Medical Board recommended that appellant’s husband shall remain in the same medical category as provided in the earlier Medical Certificate dated 27.07.1989, which essentially entailed restrictions on the kinds of duty he could perform. Yet another medical record is the Certificate dated 15.01.1996 which recorded that the appellant’s husband was fit for military duties only in plain and hilly terrain up to 7000 ft. but not in extreme cold climate as this may aggravate his disability.
5. After serving in Arunachal Pradesh, the appellant’s husband was posted in Jabalpur from 03.03.1994 to 14.08.1996 where he was a training Battalion Commander. Unfortunately, on 14.08.1996 he died due to cardiac failure, or what was termed in the medical records as ‘extensive anterior wall myocardial infraction with carial oysarrhythnia’.
6. The appellant applied for special family pension which came to be rejected by the Ministry of Defence by its letter dated 25.04.1997. Against the rejection, the appellant filed an appeal before the appellate committee of first appeals2 on 29.08.1998, which was also rejected on 02.08.1999. On dismissal of her appeal, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court3 being W.P. (C) No. 3381 of 2001. The High Court, by its order, dated 23.05.2008 set aside the order dated 02.08.1999 and remanded the matter back to the appellate committee for reconsideration. However, upon remand, the appellant’s claim for special family pension was again rejected by the appellate committee through its order dated 02.02.2009, the relevant portion of which reads as under:
“4. WHEREAS in compliance of the Hon’ble court order the case has been re-examined in the light of the rule in vogue and in consultation with competent authority on medical aspects. Your husband was in low medical category for SPRAIN MEDICAL COLLATERAL LIGAMENT LEFT sustained in OP Pawan and was given employability restriction not to be posted to hilly area and extreme cold areas. However, after the onset of disability, he was posted to a high-altitude area in Arunachal Pradesh to command his unit. Therefore, to that extent your contention that it had aggravated his disability is correct and if the officer had retired, he would have been eligible for disability pension on this account. However, he died of ACUT MYCARDLAL INFARCTION which is totally unconnected ailment. The death of your husband was due to atherosclerosis which is life style related disorder. As per medical documents your husband was obese and a chronic heavy smoker, smoking 30-40 cigarettes per day and also regularly consumed alcohol. The examination of post mortem report revealed anthracitic pigments in the lungs, atheromatous plaques in the aorta and fatty degeneration in liver indicating chronic alcohol consumption. At the time of onset of the fatal disease your husband was posted in a peace station from April 94 onwards. The 14 days charter of duties immediately prior to the fatal disease reveals no undue stress and strain of military service. He was carrying out routine peace time duties. Hence as per his posting profile, cause of death had no close time association with stress and strain of filed or CI Ops or HAA service or war like conditions or aid to civil authorities or operational duties. Therefore, fatal disease of your husband can be directly related to high risk factors in his life style like obesity, heavy smoking and alcohol consumption. All these risk factors are eminently known to hasten the process of atherosclerosis. Hence in terms of Para 47 of Chapter VI of guide to Medical Officers (Mill Pension) 2002 his death cannot be considered as aggravated by service.”
7. Upon rejection of her representation, the appellant filed an OA before the Armed Forces Tribunal being O.A. No. 104 of 2009, which came to be dismissed by its order dated 28.10.2009, which is the order impugned before us.
8. After a careful examination of the records before us, what is evident from the order dated 02.02.2009 is that the appellant’s husband was placed on ‘low medical category’. This was in the category of Special Medical Collateral Ligament, a disability which he had sustained during his posting in Sri Lanka. This posting led to employment restriction. In fact, the Medical Board had also directed that he should not to be posted at hilly and extremely cold areas. He was however posted in Arunachal Pradesh which is about 16000 to 19500 feet above sea level and this posting continued from 01.12.1991 to March, 1994. The order dated 02.02.2009 also indicates that the posting at Arunachal Pradesh could have aggravated his disability. On this count, the order even records that the appellant may be justified. However, as the appellant’s husband died due to ACUTE MYCARDIAL INFARCTION which is a totally unconnected ailment, her prayer was rejected.
9. We are of the opinion that the posting of the appellant’s husband in Sri Lanka led him to be placed in the low medical category and in such a circumstance, posting him in Arunachal Pradesh would have certainly aggravated his previous condition. This is also the view of the Medical Board as per the order dated 02.02.2009.
10. Human body is an integrated network. The period during which the appellant’s husband had performed his duties in Sri Lanka and thereafter in Arunachal Pradesh, would certainly have had a bearing on his life in many ways. We cannot ignore the continuous strain his body had to take during that period. The traumatic experience during IPKF operation followed by his posting at Arunachal Pradesh would certainly have a bearing on his life, which ultimately came to an end on 14.08.1996.
11. Many arguments were advanced before us as to whether the duties performed in Sri Lanka as well as in Arunachal Pradesh will have a bearing on the life of the appellant’s husband and on this basis, whether his disability is attributable or aggravated by mere conditions of service. Ms. Kiran Suri appearing for the Union is right in her submission that there is no direct medical link between the injury during the previous postings and the condition due to which the officer’s life came to an end.
12. Unfortunately, we have no assistance from the decision of the Tribunal as the Tribunal had summarily dismissed the original application on the ground that the Medical Board had considered the matter in detail and nothing more needs to be looked into. We do not approve of the approach adopted by the Tribunal. In the normal course, we would have remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration. However, in view of the fact that the matter has been pending in this Court since 2009, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this appeal.
13. Having considered the matter in detail and for the reason indicated in para 9, we are of the opinion that the appellant would be entitled to special family pension. We have decided to direct extension of special family pension to the appellant because of the two difficult stints he had in Sri Lanka and Arunachal Pradesh before being posted in Jabalpur. This is a peculiar case standing on its own merits. Our decision shall therefore not be treated as a precedent.
14. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the order dated 28.10.2009 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 104 of 2009 and direct that the appellant be given special family pension as per the extant rules that operate.
15. Pending application(s), if any, are disposed of.
16. No costs.
———
1 For short, “Tribunal”
2 For short, “appellate committee”
3 For short, “High Court”
