ORDER (S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.) Under assail is the order dated 03.03.2022 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Chennai in O.A.No.127 of 2020. 2. The respondent instituted original application claiming disability element of pension @ 50% duly broadbanding it to 75% w.e.f. 01.04.2017 along with arrears and interest. 3. The respondent was enrolled in the Indian Army on 24.12.1990 and discharged from service on 31.03.2017 on completion of 27 years, 3 months and 8 days. It is not in dispute that the respondent is in receipt of service pension. On 10.10.2016, the Release Medical Board assessed the disability of the respondent (i) Obesity @ 1-5% (ii) Type II Diabetes Mellitus @ 20% (iii) Non Alcoholic Fatty Liver disease @ 1-5% and (iv) Coronary Artery disease @ 30% with composite assessment @ 50% for life and opined that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. The respondent's representation for grant of disability pension was rejected on 01.04.2017 by the competent authority stating that the disability is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. The appellate authority also rejected his appeal on 10.06.2019. 4. Question arises whether the respondent is eligible to claim disability element of pension along with service pension under Regulation 37 of the Pension Regulations for the Army? 5. The learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the petitioners stated that the case of the respondent is not falling under the eligibility criteria contemplated under Regulation 37 of the Pension Regulations for the Army and therefore his case was rejected in consonance with the provisions. He would continue to say that the Tribunal has not considered the eligibility criteria contemplated under Regulation 37 and thus the Union of India preferred the present writ petition before this Court. 6. Regulation 37 of the Pension Regulations for the Army denotes disability element in addition to retiring pension to officer retired on attaining the prescribed age of retirement, which reads as under:- “37. (a) An officer who retires on attaining the prescribed age of retirement or on completion of tenure, if found suffering on retirement, from a disability which is either attributable to or aggravated by military service and so recorded by Release Medical Board, may be granted in addition to the retiring pension admissible, a disability element from the date of retirement if the degree of disability is accepted at 20% or more. (b) ....” 7. The above provision in clear terms indicates that a disability which is either attributable to or aggravated by military service and so recorded by Release Medical Board, may be taken into consideration for grant of disability pension. In the case of the respondent, the disability and the reasons recorded by the competent authority read as under:- Sl No Disability(s) Reason(s) (i) Obesity The ID is a lifestyle disease due to unhealthy dietary habits and lack of physical exercise. Hence th ID is conceded as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. (ii) DM Type-II In the instant case, onset was in a peace station and the applicant continued to serve in Peace Station till his discharge. Hence the ID is conceded as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service in terms of Para 26, Chap VI of GMO 2002, amendment 2008 and ER 2008. (iii) Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease The ID is characterised by excessive fat storage in heaptocytes in people with little or no alcohol consumption. In the instant case obesity and diabetes mellitus are both not relate to service factors and accordingly, non alcoholic. Hence the ID is conceded as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. (iv) CAD Onset of ID was in peace station at the time of onset and his 14 days charter of duties does not reflect any exceptional stress and strain. The ID is held aggravated if an individual serves in field/HAA/C1 Ops following the onset, which was not the case here. Hence the ID is conceded as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service in terms of Para 47, Chap VI of GMO 2002, amendment 2008 and ER 2008. 8. When the medical disability, as stated above, would not fall under any of the criteria as contemplated under Regulation 37 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has not considered the spirit of Regulation 37 for grant of disability element of pension in addition to the retiring pension to the respondent. 9. The Tribunal, while granting relief in favour of the respondent, relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and others, (2013) 7 SCC 316 . 9. The Tribunal, while granting relief in favour of the respondent, relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and others, (2013) 7 SCC 316 . In the said case, the Supreme Court, in paragraph 32, reiterating the principles that each case and its facts ought to be considered with reference to the nature of disability and with reference to the medical evidence available on record, observed as follows:- “32. Para 1 of Chapter II -- “Entitlement: General Principles” specifically stipulates that certificate of a constituted medical authority vis-a-vis invalidating disability, or death, forms the basis of compensation payable by the Government, the decision to admit or refuse entitlement is not solely a matter which can be determined finally by the medical authorities alone. It may require also the consideration of other circumstances e.g. service conditions, pre and post-service history, verification of wound or injury, corroboration of statements, collecting and weighing the value of evidence, and in some instances, matters of military law and dispute. For the said reasons the Medical Board was required to examine the cases in the light of etiology of the particular disease and after considering all the relevant particulars of a case, it was required to record its conclusion with reasons in support, in clear terms and language which the Pension Sanctioning Authority would be able to appreciate.” 10. In the case before the Supreme Court, the Medical Board had not given any reason in support of its opinion, particularly when there is no note of such disease or disability available in the service record of the appellant therein at the time of acceptance for military service. However, in the present case, medical records are considered along with the nature of disability suffered by the respondent. Therefore, the case relied on by the respondent is of no avail since the facts are incomparable. 11. The disability reasons stated in the case of the respondent specifically reveal that the respondent served in Peace Station till his discharge. Hence, Release Medical Board has properly held the disability as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Therefore, the case relied on by the respondent is of no avail since the facts are incomparable. 11. The disability reasons stated in the case of the respondent specifically reveal that the respondent served in Peace Station till his discharge. Hence, Release Medical Board has properly held the disability as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. When the medical assessment per se would indicate that the respondent is ineligible for disability pension, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh's case would be of no assistance to the respondent to secure the relief from the hands of the Tribunal. 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the order impugned passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chennai dated 03.03.2022 in O.A.No.127 of 2020 is quashed and the writ petition stands allowed. Consequently, W.M.P.No.5772 of 2024 is closed. No costs.