OA 75 of 2011 Chander Bhan - Armed Forces Tribunal

OA No. 75 of 2011 1
ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH REGIONAL BENCH AT
CHANDIMANDIR
-.-
OA 75 of 2011
Chander Bhan …… Petitioner(s)
Vs
Union of India and others …… Respondent(s)
-.-
ORDER
16.07.2012
-.-
Coram: Justice NP Gupta, Judicial Member.
Lt Gen (Retd) N.S. Brar, Administrative Member.
-.-
For the Petitioner (s) : Mr Surinder Sheorand, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr Suveer Sheokand, CGC.
-.-
In compliance of the directions dated 12.04.2012, learned counsel
for the respondents has brought some record, sent to him by ASC Records,
Bangalore vide letter dated 10.07.2012, reading as under:-
“1. Ref your Sig No. A-2615 dated 18 Apr 2012.
2. No 148507894 Rank NK Name Surender Kumar of this office is
hereby directed to report to your unit alongwith following documents
in respect of No. 6359211 Ex Hav Chander Bhan for producing
before the Hon’ble Court of AFT Chandigarh on next date of hearing
i.e. 16 Jul 2012 in connection with subject case:-
(a) Primary Medical Examination Report dated (AFMSF-2A) dated
17 May 1963 in original.
(b) Medical Board Proceedings (AFMSF-15) dated 13 Jul, 1984 in
original.
(c) Medical Examination Report (AFMSF-18) dated 14 May 1985 in
original.
(d) Release Medical Board (AFMSF-16) dated 03 Jun 1985 in
original.

OA No. 75 of 2011 2
3. You are requested to return the documents through our rep
after needful action.”
The file contains the proceedings of Release Medical Board being AFMSF-
16 dated 15.05.1985, medical examination record in lieu of AFMSF-18,
two typed copies of AFMSF-15 dated 05.07.1984, a typed copy of AFMSF-
15A dated 05.03.2005. Both these typed copies purport to be certified true
copies certified by Raghbir Singh, Lieut, Asstt Record Officer, for OIC
Records, prepared in May, 1985, it also contains one carbon copy of
AFMSF-15 dated 05.07.1984, which was approved on 13.07.1984, and
also contains the medical examination report of the petitioner, conducted at
the time of recruitment.
We have perused all these papers and have thereafter heard learned
counsel for the parties.
By this petition, the petitioner claims a direction to the respondents
quashing impugned RMB dated 23.05.1985; letter dated 16.01.1986,
Annexures A-2 and A-3 by which the petitioner’s claim for disability pension
has been rejected. The petitioner also claims a direction for release of
disability element of disability pension by assessing the disability
percentage as per Guide to Medical Officers, 2002, from 01.06.1985 by
holding fresh RMB or RSMB for life. Other consequential directions have
also been prayed for.
The factual averments are that the petitioner joined the Army services
w.e.f. 17.05.1963, and was discharged w.e.f. 31.05.1985. In the year 1984
he was admitted at Military Hospital, Roorki, where he was treated against
the disease `LABILE HYPERTENSION 402 & OBESITY-278’; his disability
was declared as aggravated by the Medical Board held on 05.07.1984.
Copy of this Medical Board proceedings has been produced as Annexure

OA No. 75 of 2011 3
A-1. Then it is pleaded that Release Medical Board was held on
23.05.1985, which assessed the composite disability at 20%. However,
the same had been declared as not attributable nor aggravated by Military
service. Copy of Release Medical Board proceedings has been produced
as Annexure A-2. The claim for grant of disability pension was forwarded
to PCDA, Allahabad, and the same has been rejected vide letter dated
16.01.1986, produced as Annexure A-3. According to the petitioner, he
was never intimated about the disability percentage for the disability
LABILE HYPERTENSION 402 to be less than 20% by the Release Medical
Board. The petitioner sought the medical documents as well as other
connected documents from respondent No.4, which were supplied to him
vide letter dated 29.10.2010 (Annexure A-4), where-from he came to know
that the disability was declared aggravated by the Medical Board.
However, the Release Medical Board had assessed the disability
percentage for the disease LABILE HYPERTENSION 402 at 6 to 10% and
founded it to be not attributable nor aggravated. With these factual
averments, reliance is placed on Guide to Medical Officers to claim
disability percentage of Hypertension to be 30% as against 6 to 10%, and
the above reliefs have been claimed.
Reply has been filed by the respondents, inter alia pleading, that the
petitioner was brought before Release Medical Board being in Low Medical
Category for the two disabilities (i) Mild Essential Hypertension and (ii)
Obesity, and the Release Medical Board found both the disabilities to be
neither attributable to nor aggravated by Military service, which findings are
not open to interference by this Tribunal. Objection of delay has been
taken. Regarding document Annexure A-1, it was pleaded at pages 12 and
13 of the reply that the Classified Specialist Medicine held “a stockily built

OA No. 75 of 2011 4
and over weight NCO ( 162 cm, Wt 69 KG) found to have mild hypertension
(BP range 128/80 – 139/98 MMHg) presented with giddiness” which itself
speaks that the disability has no connection with military service.
We need not dilate on various other pleadings taken, in view of the
discussion being made hereafter.
When the matter came up for hearing, on 12.04.2012, learned
counsel for the petitioner stressed much on Annexure A-1, as produced,
specially column No.5 at page 2 thereof, and contended that it is mentioned
therein “(1) by physical & mental stress & strain of service (2) No -- NA”,
and submitted that this is the opinion of the Medical Board given on
05.07.1984, and that being the position, there was no occasion for the
Release Medical Board to give an otherwise opinion.
Since, on the face of things regarding Annexure A-1, and the portion
pressed into service by learned counsel for the petitioner, the things did not
inspire confidence, as it looked like some interpolation, and, therefore, on
that day learned counsel for the respondents was asked to make available
the original of this Annexure A-1, and he sought time. Consequently, the
matter was adjourned for today. Today learned counsel for the
respondents has made available the documents as detailed above.
On perusal of the documents produced by the respondents, specially
the hand-written carbon copy of Annexure A-1, it transpired that the portion
relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner does not exist therein. Not
only this, certain other writings appearing in columns No.3 and 4 of
Annexure A-1, at page 2, also do not appear in the said copy,
notwithstanding the fact that in all other respects Annexure A-1, as
produced by the petitioner, clearly looks to be a Photostat copy, but does
not look to be photostat copy of the paper produced by the respondents as

OA No. 75 of 2011 5
such. Of course, other contents including over-writing contained in column
No.12 at page 2 do tally in Annexure A-1 as well as in the document
produced by the respondents.
That being the position, we asked the learned counsel for the
petitioner to make available for our perusal the source of receipt of the
documents by him i.e. original of Annexure A-4, which was made available,
and is correct copy of its original. Obviously, vide Annexure A-4, the
petitioner was supplied Photostat copies of the documents mentioned in
para 2 thereof, and the copies produced by the petitioner, including that
being Annexure A-1 purport to be true photostat copy, we desired the
learned counsel for the petitioner to make available for our perusal the
precise documents supplied to him along with Annexure A-4, rather vide
Annexure A-4. There-upon, learned counsel made available the Medical
Board proceedings AFMSF-15 dated 05.07.1984. We take this document
on record, rather confiscate it.
A comparision of this document supplied by the learned counsel
today, marked as `X’ for identification purposes by us today, with Annexure
A-1 shows that Annexure A-1, instead of being photostat copy of the said
document provided by learned counsel for the respondents, is the photostat
copy of this paper `X’. Variety of reasons in that regard are, that at the first
page, rather front portion thereof, as the document is on both sides, in the
document made available by learned counsel for the respondents, left
bottom corner is quite torn, and good part of left side portion of the
document is also torn, rather not available, including some numerical
figures as appearing in paper `X’, while in paper `X’ all these things are
clear, and left bottom corner is slightly folded forwardly. Annexure A-1 is,
thus, the photostat copy of paper `X’.

OA No. 75 of 2011 6
In this background, a look at the paper `X’ even on naked eye view
does show, that it is not a photostat copy nor a carbon copy, but it is the
original document, containing original handwritings and original signatures
of the authorities purporting to sign. Obviously, therefore, this could not be
the document supplied to the petitioner vide Annuxure A-4, and we have
no option but to assume, that the petitioner was already in possession of
this paper `X’. Significantly, the over-writings appearing in column 12 of
page 2 is there in both the papers, being paper `X’ and the copy today
produced by learned counsel for the respondents. With this background,
now a look at the paper `X’ shows that on page 2 thereof, on the top certain
other things have also been written being as under-
“ (7) 297 ASC SUPPLY ”
which do not find place on the document made available by learned
counsel for the respondents today. Obviously, therefore, also this cannot
be said to be the photostat copy provided vide Annexure A-4.
It is in this sequence that a look at page 2 of this document ( paper
`X’) clearly shows that the written portion therein, which are in addition to
the written portions available in the said document provided by learned
counsel for the respondents, are clearly in different ink and different
handwriting. Obviously, we are not in a position to ascertain as to when
they have been inserted, and by whom they have been inserted. However,
in view of the documents made available by learned counsel for the
respondents, it is clear that at least till May, 1985, when the certified to be
true copy being typed copy was prepared by the Records Officer, these
inscriptions were not there. In that view of the matter Annexure A-1, as
produced by the petitioner, including the paper `X’, cannot be believed to
be the correct document, opining the disability to be attributable to Military

OA No. 75 of 2011 7
service, apart from the fact that column No.5 contemplates an answer as to
whether the disability was attributable or was aggravated, and if answer
was to be given, it was required with respect to either of them, and not
simple `yes’.
Though it is a very serious matter that a document has been
interpolated, and claim for disability pension is laid before this Tribunal by
the petitioner, but then it is not clear as to when the interpolation was done,
and by whom it was done. In that view of the matter, we do not feel
advised to carry the matter further, so as to take any action against the
petitioner, and rest ourselves contented only with the conclusions arrived at
above, about the inscriptions being not there in the original records, in
favour of attributability or aggravation of the disability by Military service.
That being the position, we do not find anything wrong with the
opinion recorded by the Release Medical Board, so also the order passed
by the pension sanctioning authority, declining disability pension claim.
16.07.2012
saini
The petition has, thus, no force, and is dismissed.
(Justice NP Gupta)
[Lt Gen (Retd) N.S. Brar]