T.S.THAKUR, J. - (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) THESE appeals arise out of separate but similar orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal holding the respondents entitled to claim disability pension under the relevant Pension Regulations of the Army. The Tribunal has taken the view that the disability of each one of the respondents was attributable to or aggravated by military service and the same having been assessed at more than 20% entitled them to disability pension. The appellant -Union of India has assailed that finding and direction for payment of pension primarily on the ground that the Medical Boards concerned having clearly opined that the disability had not arisen out of or aggravated by military service, the Tribunal was not justified in taking a contrary view.
(3.) RELYING upon the decisions of this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Keshar Singh, 2007 12 SCC 675; Om Prakash Singh v. Union of India and Ors, 2010 12 SCC 667; Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Ors. v. A.V. Damodaran (Dead) through LRs. and Ors, 2009 9 SCC 140; and Union of India and Ors. v. Ram Prakash, 2010 11 SCC 220, it was contended by Mr. Balasubramanian, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in these appeals, that the opinion of the Release Medical Board and in some cases Re - survey Medical Board and Appellate Medical Authority must be respected, especially when the question whether the disability suffered by the respondents was attributable to or aggravated by military service was a technical question falling entirely in the realm of medical science in which the opinion expressed by medical experts could not be lightly brushed aside. Inasmuch as the Tribunal had failed to show any deference to the opinion of the experts who were better qualified to determine the question of attributability of a disease/disability to a military service, the Tribunal had fallen in error argued the learned counsel. On behalf of the respondents it was, on the other hand, submitted that the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant were of no assistance in view of the later pronouncement of this Court in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and Ors, 2013 7 SCC 316 where a two -Judge Bench of this Court had, after a comprehensive review of the case law and the relevant rules and regulations, distinguished the said decisions and stated the true legal position. It was contended that the earlier decisions in the cases relied upon by the appellants were decided in the peculiar facts of those cases and did not constitute a binding precedent especially when the said decisions had not dealt with several aspects to which the decision of this Court in Dharamvir Singh's case had adverted. Applying the principles enunciated in Dharamvir Singh's case these appeals, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, deserve to be dismissed and indeed ought to meet that fate.;