 Good evening friends. Today's speaker, Navdeep Singh needs no introduction as such and not only he's a good speaker and a good friend of mine. When he shared that he had written a book on military pension simplified, I thought that there couldn't be a better way where we can make him explain to us that what are the military pensions and overview. We all know that Major Navdeep Singh has been taking issues which are related and correlated with the armed forces. His passion not only through writing as well as taking courses, pro bono and otherwise is well known to all of us. Just for the facilitation of the persons who are watching us live on the YouTube, Facebook and Instagram, I'm showing the book which he has just been released that is a revised version which the earlier version was also doing well. Military pensions simplified. This book is readily available on the online versions as well as on the stores. Now, since the book carries into different chapters and I have also gone through that it's actually not only the topic what has been written that it is simplified. And if you actually go through that you will be able to understand all the complex issues have been really they say unblocked for everyone, one who can understand. So today's session rather than being a monologue it will be more like an interactive like what we have done with Navdeep earlier also. Navdeep, since we are discussing upon military pensions and overview, can you just explain what types of pension are there or there are only one type of pension, how is it? Good evening Mr. Chhatrat and good evening all friends who are watching. Thank you for that wonderful introduction. As you know that, you know, pensions is a very, very wide. And in fact, in certain terms, a very unwieldy topic. And there is not just one type of pension there are multiple types of pensions. So I'll just give you a very brief overview of what are the types of pensions and many of these concepts overlap on the civil side as well as the military side. And many of these concepts are common. And there's only minor differences contrary to popular perception people think that you know military pensions are totally different than what civil pensions are but that's not the case. These overlap at many places and mostly the concepts are similar. The first very basic pension is called service pension or retiring pension. As you know, as many of us know that in case of service pension, it is admissible to officers, commissioned officers of the Army, Navy and the Air Force after 20 years of service. For the ranks other than commissioned officers, the length of service required is 15 years. Now, this 15 years can also be condoned by one year, but the shortfall can be condoned by one year. So it can come down to 14 years also in case of ranks other than commissioned officers. I don't call them personnel below officer rank because even the NCOs and JCOs, they are technically officers, non-commissioned officers, they are officers and junior commissioned officers are also officers. In fact, they're group B, guys and equipment. So I prefer calling them rank ranks other than commissioned officers. So for them, the length of service is 15 years and shortfall can be condoned by one year. This condonation is not available to officers, but there is another concept called late entrant pension that applies to officers because in certain types of entries a person enters the service and is not able to complete 20 years and he or she reaches the superanimation age or age of release. So in that case, in officers also in the officers category also the length of service required is 15 years, but those are very rare cases. So the basic concept is 20 years for officers and 15 years for other ranks, ranks other than commissioned officers, condonable to 14 years. Now this was the basic pension. Now, other than the basic pension, the retiring and the service pension, the concept of disability pension is there. Disability pension also consists of two elements. One is the service element, which is linked to your length of service, but there is no minimum length applicable for service element of disability pension since the year 1973. Before 1973, there was a minimum length of service required to earn a service element of disability pension, but that was advocated in the year 1973. Even for pre-1973 retirees, the cutoff date has been read down and struck down by the high courts and then the Supreme Court. And now even pre-73 retirees are entitled to service element of disability pension, irrespective of length of service, with effect from 1173, 1st January 1973. The other part of disability pension is called disability element that is linked to the percentage of your disability. So service element and disability element together combine to make disability pension. And as I said, there is no requirement of any minimum length of service for disability pension. But disability pension is given to cases where the disability has been declared attributable to military service or aggravated by military service, or deemed to be attributable to military service or deemed to be aggravated by military service as per rules. There are times when the military medical board or the military authorities don't treat it as attributable or aggravated. But as per interpretation of rules, in certain cases, it has to be treated as attributable slash aggravated as held by the Supreme Court and various high courts and also benches of the armed forces tribunal. So the stamp of a medical board is not the last word. What determines attributability or aggravation is the rules because the rules are very, very liberal. The rules are very beneficial as applicable to not just the Indian defense services, but all over the world. The rules are very liberal. But the application of those rules and the interpretation of the rules by certain authorities is very literal in nature. So by their very nature, the government intended to give maximum beneficial application of these rules. But the application practically speaking becomes literal because of multiple reasons. So this was regarding disability pension. Now another concept related to disability is invalid pension. Invalid pension is different than disability pension. People tend to mix up the two concepts. Even on the civil side, they tend to mix up the two concepts. But invalid pension is totally different. So invalid pension is granted to those who have disabilities which are neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service or neither attributable to nor aggravated by service on the civil side. So these include disabilities which have nothing to do at all with your service conditions. For example, a person is on leave and is doing something which is absolutely unrelated to military service. Let's say, you know, a person is working in his or her fields and gets disabled during an agricultural activity while at leave, while during leave. So that person would be entitled to invalid pension and not to disability pension. In fact, interestingly, even if the disability is caused due to a person's own misconduct or own negligence, or even while committing a crime, interestingly, when a person gets disabled, still he or she remains entitled to invalid pension. So invalid pension has nothing to do with service conditions or any link with service conditions. It simply means that if a person who is a government servant gets disabled due to a disability which has absolutely no nexus or no link with the government service, then a person is entitled to invalid pension. That is not to say that in case of misconduct or negligence, disability pension is not granted. Disability pension can be granted even in cases of misconduct and negligence. The amount of disability element can be reduced in those cases. But I'll come back to invalid pension. So for invalid pension, till the year 2019, the minimum length of service required was 10 years, unlike disability pension where there is no minimum length of service required. But this concept of 10 years, the minimum requirement of 10 years was read down by the Supreme Court by a three judge bench, which said that if you yourself are releasing a person on medical grounds, or if a person is going home by citing a disability which you are accepting and then you're letting him or her go, then there is no question of having a 10 years minimum length of service because, just a second. Because it's the government which is releasing a person on medical grounds or by accepting the person's claim that he or she cannot work further. So if the government itself is releasing a person or evaluating out a person on medical grounds, then there is no question of having a 10 years minimum length of service. So the Supreme Court read down that provision. In fact, the government itself very graciously conceded in court that yes, this 10 years condition should not be there, and they issued a gazette notification, aggregating the 10 years condition for invalid pension with effect from 2019. That has been in effect since 4th of January 2019. For all government services, however, in the government letter issued for the defense services, there were still certain anomalies and certain additional conditions were imposed while drafting the letter. Now that is also under rectification as of now and hopefully it will be rectified soon. But I mean, in a broader sense, the minimum length of service of 10 years has already been appropriated for all government services since January 2019. That was about invalid pension. Then there is a concept called reservist pension. Now reservist pension is applicable to reservists. Now reservists was a concept enforced in the defense services till about 1970s, where in a person used to serve for about 8 years in the colors and 7 years in the reserves. 8 years in the colors meant proper physical service. Physical service in uniform, physical qualifying service as is rendered by a regular soldier. And then a person used to go on to the reserves for about 7 years, wherein that person could be called out during a national emergency or any other dire requirement and he used to attend periodic training camps every year. So the concept of reservist pension entailed that after completing 15 years of colored and reserve combined color and reserve service of 15 years, 8 years in the colors and 7 years in the reserve or it could be higher also 9 plus 6, 10 plus 5, 6 plus 9. So total 15 years of service spent in colors and reserves irrespective of the physical service a person used to be entitled to a reservist pension. That reservist pension could not be less than, as per rule, it could not be less than two thirds of what is admissible to a regular supply of the lowest grade. So reservist pension is only given to reservists. There was another controversy till recently that when the concept of one rank, one pension was introduced to OROP, whether the benefits are to be extended to reservists or not. So there was a judgment recently by the armed forces tribunal that even if technically OROP does not apply to reservists or if you assume that OROP does not apply to reservists, till two thirds of what is admissible to a regular supply of the lowest grade under the OROP would have to be given to reservists since that is provided by the rules. So that is about reservist pension. Then there's a concept called special pension. A special pension is also a very interesting concept which many people do not know even within the army and navy and air force. A special pension used to be granted to those people who were released in mass numbers due to reduction in establishment or some other such reason. So for example, immediately after independence, there was a reduction in manpower and many people were discharged. So in those cases, special pension used to be released and special pension required only 10 years of service. This was similar to the mustering out pension that we had during the British times. So special pension is also a similar concept. It is applicable till now that if a person is released due to reduction in establishment or similar reasons, the person would have to be released pension in 10 years of service rather than waiting for 15 years of service as is applicable in the normal course. Then there are family pensions. There's ordinary family pension. There is a special family pension. There is liberalized family pension. These pensions are granted in different kind of circumstances. Ordinary family pension is granted when the death of the soldier has nothing to do with military services, neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Special family pension is given when there is a service connection or it is deemed to be attributable to an aggravated by military service. Then liberalized family pension is given to deaths due to operational reasons or in operational areas. These were the basic types of pensions. I don't think I should give more details because this is a broad overview which would be understandable by a lay person. Now, could you just because this concept normally people don't understand. What is the distinction between a special family pension and a liberalized family pension as such? Yes, so special family pension as I said is granted. It is similar to in concept to disability pension. So if a person sustains a disability violence service and which is attributable to or aggravated by or deemed to be attributable to or deemed to be aggravated by under the rules, the person gets a disability pension. But if the person dies of the disability due to the same reasons attributable slash aggravated or deemed attributable slash aggravated, the widow or the family gets special family pension. So in case of disability, a person gets disability pension in case of death, the person gets special family pension due to attributable slash aggravated causes. The concepts overlap and so whenever a death is caused by any kind of disability or by a disease or an injury, the widow or the family would get special family pension. Liberalized family pension is a little different. Special family pension is paid at 60% of emoluments, whereas liberalized family pension is paid at 100% of emoluments. Liberalized family pension is granted when the person dies in an operational area due to operational causes or due to active hostilities or active operations or due to causes which are in the sense battle casualties. So in that case, if a person survives and suffers a disability, he or she is granted ward injury pension, but if he or she dies, then the family gets liberalized family pension. So liberalized family pension is related to operational deaths and operational areas. And you need not be a death by a bullet or a bomb. It can be other causes also. For example, a person is making an operational move in a counterinsurgency environment and dies in a motor vehicle accident while performing road opening party duties or performing a personal operational duty. Or dies due to climatic conditions in Siachen or other high altitude areas, notified areas, the family or the widow would be entitled to liberalized family pension and not simple special family pension. So this was the difference between special family pension and liberalized family pension. Now, one of the person has sent us a message that in case this pension etc is not paid what is due to him or her, then what will be the forum for him or her to be invoked at the time for the judicial office grievances? See, for the result of such grievances, I always suggest that one should not directly move any judicial forum because the litigation should be voided and it is the duty of the society and also the lawyers not to increase litigation where it is not required. Of course, where it is required and I have to approach a court of law in the case of the Defensives down for Systrubion. But the first thing that should be done is that the person should be writing to the records office or to the defense accounts department in case there is a problem at the principal controller of defense accounts pensions at Allahabad or similar establishments for the Navy in the Air Force. The person must write to them, must write to the records office, must send an email and there is a grievances portal also available under CPGrams as also under the defense department of extension of the defense. So that is the way that you first at least write to them and try to find out. Also, in certain cases, you do not get a reply, you must invoke the RTI act by simply sending an RTI query, not seeking the judicial grievances but at least asking them that what action has been taken on the grievance submitted by a person. Now, if nothing works, ultimately, then of course a person has to, in case of the defense services, a person has to approach the armed forces, Systrubion, in case of other central services, a person has to approach the central administrative Of course, if relief is not granted, then I quote at the stream board, but first thing one must do is file one's grievances through, there is no perfect system of filing grievances, there is no, nothing, which is prescribed by law in the sense that you have to file a grievance to such and such person only. So you have to use common sense and common knowledge and apply your mind and see where the grievance originates, whether it originates on the military side or on the counts side or on the banking side and make an effort at least to send a letter slash email slash complaint to the set authority. Though it is not directly related to pension, when Abhishek says that if one wants to start practice in the EFT, what are the requisite conditions for that? Is that lawyer straight away he can do practice or does he require some particular experience under someone or to go about it? No, no, nothing at all. I mean, any lawyer who has a license to practice can practice in any port in India, including the Supreme Court. So there is no such. Of course, you have to read up on material, you have to read up on case law, you have to be especially interested in the particular field and build up your own knowledge level and build up your own knowledge bank before getting into practice because there are certain technicalities required, not just in this field. I always tell them that don't treat military law or pensionary law as a hoa or as a big deal. It's just nothing. It's just as in the civil side. I mean, it's no big deal. If you are well versed with your art, whether it's a civil case or a civil service matter or a military service matter, we have over the years, you know, spoken of military cases as if it's a very big deal and requires a very, very special kind of expertise. Not at all. All are welcome and almost practice in this area. It's the same as the service matters, you know, flow from constitutional issues and constitutional matters and the basic concepts on the civil side and the military side including in pension are the same. So no need to be afraid and you can just start practicing this. No big deal. We have been discussing about the otherwise wider spectrum but you feel which are the few important judgments which actually there was a shift, the landscape of the benefits which was changed because of some particular judgment. There are many, many judgments. I mean, it's, again, it will be a very unwieldy canvas if we go into judgments because every particular aspect of pension has a different, you know, governing field or a judgment governing. But overall, I can say, like you and I have also been discussing while doing our cases from any side that, you know, the basic concept is very interesting. It's very interesting. In fact, I must point this out that one is aware of the Okinawan Prasad versus state of Bihar where it was said that, you know, pension is not as for the suite will or pension is not a bounty and it does not depend upon the suite will of the employer and so right. So interestingly, the Okinawan Prasad's judgment was not the original judgment which had used this terminology. In fact, in fact, the Honourable Supreme Court in that case was citing the K.R. Erie's case of 1966 by the Punjabi Nirvana High Court in saying so. And it was a, and again interestingly, K.R. Erie's case of 1966 was citing another case called Gurdip Singh versus Union of India of 1960 of again of our High Court of Punjabi Nirvana High Court of Punjab. I mean, not Honourable Supreme Court Nirvana High Court that time, but our High Court in 1960 and Gurdip Singh versus Union of India was also a case dealing with military pensions. So military pensions has a link or a basis in all landmark judgments, you can say in a sense, rendered in the pensionary field because the Okinawan Prasad was actually borrowing that term and citing it. Of course, after fully disclosing the judgment from which it was being cited of our High Court, which was dealing with a military pensions case of Gurdip Singh, who was a commissioned officer from the ranks and was not being paid the correct pension as per his rank. Now, this was the case where in I think just as Dua of our High Court in 1960 said that pension cannot depend upon the arbitrary and uncontrolled whims of the authorities in the government. And it is not a bounty depending upon the mayor's suite will of authorities and it flows as per law and as per rules. And this was also the first case wherein there was a distinction made between the British law governing the field at that point of time and the common law by saying that in India we cannot because since we are dealt with by I mean we are governed by the Constitution of India. And so we cannot give undue reverence to what is decided in such matters or in service matters by governmental authorities or authorities in power. And the person has a right to approach courts because till that point of time the law was that whatever the government says is correct and you can only make a petition of the political kind or of an administrative kind. And you cannot approach the courts in saying that in service matters and in pensionary matters that I've been wronged and please correct this. So this was the first case where Deep Singh was a union of India starting from not the first case but a landmark case wherein this was reiterated and the British law until then enforced. I mean also by distinguishing a judgment of the Privy Council it was held that no, if a person is wronged that person has the right to approach the court. And the court will very well come to his or her rescue. Yeah, since we have discussed the pension and you've written military pension simplified. Could you just explain what went within your mind? How did this idea crop up that you should write this book? You have already been taking issues as such. What actually prevailed upon you? There were two reasons, two very basic reasons and I would spell them out very frankly. The first reason was that there is nothing available which can explain these concepts in lay person terms. So it becomes very difficult to, you know, people get apprehensive and it becomes very difficult to comprehend as to what are these kinds of pensions, what is the law governing them, what are the provisions governing them. As you just saw that there was a query that if I want to practice in this field what do I have to do. So people remain in the dark as to what's to be done and how are these issues been decided or governed in the past. So the idea was to just to spread this knowledge in lay person terms that people can understand. The second reason was and on a lighter note I should not be flamed by my fellow lawyers that I always felt that, you know, there is certain totally unrequired unnecessary sundry litigation, which, you know, comes about only because a person is unaware of the basic provision governing his case, his or her case, or a very basic judgment or very basic facts on how these concepts evolve. So the idea was also to reduce unnecessary litigation in certain aspects so that, you know, the person himself or herself can quote the authority to the authority's concerns that see this is what is due to what we kindly give it to me. Of course they are most welcome to approach the courts, ultimately, if still things don't work out. But I've seen that in certain cases which are, you know, which are cases where the authority is concerned of the military record offices or the principal controller defense accounts, the officers dealing with the subjects are unaware of themselves unaware of certain policies. So if you point out the policy, the issue gets resolved. So the idea was also to ensure that people are not burdened with unnecessary litigation. Of course in complicated issues you will require to go to courts, there's no other way. But there are certain very, very basic issues where, you know, all these litigation may not be ultimately required. And having been a part of a committee of experts to reduce litigation constituted on the direction of the prime minister in 2015 and constituted by the defense minister, I really feel that there should be no unnecessary burden on dockets of the courts and pocket of litigants and things which can be resolved easily. But of course, as I said that there are certain issues where the intervention of law or intervention of courts is required. I am a 2006 pensioner. ORP areas are yet to be received, not in sparse age over 70. How should one proceed with that? That person can, I think we should not be taking individual specific queries like this in the sense we can take individual queries as far as the concept is concerned or understanding of concept is concerned. But individual cases cannot be ethical for us to give answers or solutions to individual specific cases. They can always email us or write to us. But, you know, answering this, as I said before, must write to the bank or the PDA concerned or use the sparse portal which is now applicable or write to the officer's records office in Arquipuram in New Delhi. And ensure that there is a release, send an email also. I am not sure it would be. People are facing issues in release of ORP areas but banks are also not attuned. But even after the Supreme Court judgment and after circulars issued by the defense accounts department, banks are not attuned to releasing these applicable areas. But things are moving a little slow. It will happen in just a matter of time. Now, what is, when we were discussing, what all parameters are to be checked in when we talk about disability pension? And we also discuss about, we also read about in the newspapers, etc. that there is a disability percent, 20 percent, 30 percent, 40 percent, rounding off. What are all these concepts which even a layman can understand as? Disability is a very, very wide subject but a very important one. What we see is that the concept of disability is not even understood by military personnel themselves or the people in power or not in power but in key appointments. So, disability is dealt with by drawing room discussions and flippant, very casual and demeaning debates. For example, if a person gets a heart attack or a heart related issue, they'll say, a risk of what to do with the data types. And why should that person get disability benefits or in case of death, why should the widow get death benefits? But these are very, very complex issues which require sensitivity, number one. Number two, they require a regulatory framework. They require a regulatory, medical and legal understanding. So, the propensity or the inclination of our senior officers or senior officers to discuss these matters in a casual manner is actually not a very appreciable thing. Now, I've said this in one of your discussions before and I've said this in my TEDx talks and many other points. That the stress and strain of service is universally recognized in aggravating existing medical conditions. It's not rocket science. I give this example always, always I give this example that a person who's strained away from his or her family for 10 months a year under the shadow of the gun sometimes. In a regimented lifestyle, even in a peace area, where you require a permission or a set of permissions even to go to the market. The freedoms are curtailed. Something whatever happens at your home front, you're unable to, you know, commit to the family in that sense or unable to take care of domestic commitments. All these things, if you're, let's say if you are suffering from a heart condition or hypertension, naturally it will get aggravated due to the stress and strain of military service. And it is universally recognized. Every single democracy under the sun recognizes that stress and strain of service affects your existing medical conditions, affects results in aggravating your existing medical conditions. And they're very sensitive about it, except in India. In India they'll say, oh, this is lifestyle disorder. What is a lifestyle disorder? I mean, if a person is a heavy smoker or a heavy drinker and he suffers a heart attack or he suffers from hypertension, yes, you can say it's a lifestyle disorder because of his own negligence of health. That is a chain smoker or something and he got a heart attack. It has nothing to do with military service. But if a seemingly fine person taking care of his or her health, let's say a non-smoker or a normal person gets a heart attack due to stress and strain of service because he's under tremendous stress while performing his military services. And then you start calling it a lifestyle disorder, though it is already covered under the rules. The rules say that, you know, disabilities like hypertension, ischemic heart disease, CAD, coronary artery disease, etc. They are affected by stress and strain of service. They are affected by stress and strain of military service. The rules are saying so. We are no authorities to say no, no, it is not linked with military service. Defence personnel are dying earlier than their civilian counterparts, you know, civilian employees. A normal person in normal circumstances lives with his or her family, works from 9 to 5, can go to the market, can do whatever he or she wants, can stay with the family whenever there is a problem he or she is there to take care of those commitments. A fogee who is deployed far away, whatever happens back home affects him negatively. And again, I say it's not rocket science. It is common sense. So why would someone say that stress and strain of military service does not affect your health? It is an absolute disservice by us, by our own, you know, comrades in arms to deal with these issues in a demeaning manner. All over the world it is accepted. Rather if we should be concentrating on bringing down military disabilities, bringing down medical conditions due to stress and strain of service, we should be concentrating on improving our health so that the number of disabilities, the number of medical conditions, the incidence of medical conditions comes down. Rather than, you know, talking of, oh, we'll have to give death-related benefits in case a person dies of a heart attack, et cetera, et cetera. That is not the road to toe to take. And we must be very, very careful and we must be very, very sensitive while dealing with these issues. Now coming back to your basic question, for seeing whether a person is entitled to disability pension or not, the first thing which is to be seen is that whether the medical board has stated that the disability had a reason in service or not. If the medical board says that the disability existed prior to entering service, then a person directly is not entitled to disability pension. Unless, of course, there are special circumstances which have aggravated a pre-existing disability. That is the first thing to see in a medical board. So before taking up a case of disability pension, one has to obtain a copy of the medical board and see it closely whether a person is entitled or not entitled. Now issues like if a medical board has dealt with the, let's say, again, heart disease in a perfectly fit person and says that the heart disease was incurred in service but it is not attributable or aggravated by service because the disability had a reason in a peace area or because it's a constitutional disability, et cetera, et cetera. Those things don't work because the Supreme Court says whether the disability is in a peace area and so do the rules. Whether a disability is incurred in a peace area or a field area, in peace conditions or normal conditions, it absolutely has no relevance. And as per rules, if a disability arises in service, the natural or the deeming fiction is that it is deemed to have a link with stress and strain of military service and the military conditions or service conditions, unless of course, as I said, the medical board records something as in that he's a heavy drinker and it has affected his liver or heavy smoker and that's why he is getting the heart attack, unless that is the issue. Other remarks such as that a person is serving in a peace area hence he's not entitled to disability pension, et cetera, et cetera, is against common sense, is against practical realities, is against the rules and is also against the lawly downwards Supreme Court. This is by Captain Krishna, he says, does diabetes and IPP, considered and construed under the disability or not? Absolutely, it is. Diabetes and hypertension are both disabilities, medical conditions and if these were incurred during the course of service, they do qualify for disability pension if they are covered by the judgments of the Supreme Court. Again, if there is diabetes and it is due to a person's own dietary indiscretion, then of course it is not covered. This is a general weakening says that that's section 133 of the Official Secret Act, violate Article 14 of constitution. This has nothing to do with the concept of pension, let's not discuss that. Next question is by General Pandey, he says, how are we placed regarding disability pension? Yes, so the basic rules governing, was the question about disability pension? Disability pension. So the basic rules regarding disability pension are absolutely the same. The only difference is that in case of civilians, if a person is released on medical grounds from service or if a person puts in a request for release on medical grounds or citing medical grounds as the reason for release or retirement, then a person is entitled to disability pension. However, if the person is retained in service, despite the disability or continues to, or opts to continue in service despite the disability, then he or she is entitled to a lump sum compensation in view of disability pension, which is basically the capitalized amount of disability pension. However, on the military side, if a person is retained in service despite the disability, the person gets an option whether to opt for disability pension or whether to opt for the capitalized amount of lump sum compensation. That's the only slight difference. Otherwise the concepts and the rules governing civilians and forges are just the same. This is another question he says, how can dietary habits be quantified by the medical authorities to say that the person falls with disability pension or not? Again, it's a very subjective question. If the medical board does not give any evidence on how there is a dietary indiscretion, then of course a person is entitled to the benefit of doubt. But let's say five, six boards, past five, six boards, the medical board is constantly writing that there is obesity and a person is unable to control the intake of sugar or is not following any exercise regime despite requests by the medical board or despite advice by the medical board. So if there are four, five, six boards saying the same thing, then obviously if the release medical board writes that the person was advised at such and such, such and such, such and such point, control is eating habits. And because of that, you know, diabetes is affected then of course, but if the comment of a medical board is just in the air or just saying that he's in peace area hence he's not entitled, then of course the person is entitled to benefit of doubt. Now again, obesity is always to be taken very, it is to be examined very carefully because it may not always be because of your dietary indiscretion or dietary wrong, incorrect dietary habits. It can happen due to hormonal reasons. It can happen due to other reasons. It can happen due to the fact that a person for example is suffering from hypertension and or some, not hypertension, some other disability because of which he cannot exercise regularly. It may lead to weight gain. A person may be a sportsman, a sports person which may require a heavier, for example a bodybuilder or a weight lifter or a boxer that may require a person to gain some weight and he or she may not be able to shed off that weight. So all these cases are to be dealt on a case-to-case basis. There can be no straight jacket formula. So again, you cannot just say that a person is obese because of dietary indiscretion. So obesity also has to be seen and these things must be understood by medical authorities and the higher military authorities also that you cannot body shame a person or just broad-based is that oh, you're suffering from, you have excessive weight. So hence you must not be doing something right. So it's not that also. So every case is to be examined on a case-to-case basis. This is when RMB has given opinion, disabilities, high-powered, hypertension and asthma are aggravated by military patients. Can Army Headquarter overturn RMB? Legally it cannot be overturned because the law says, law is this, that in case of a positive declaration by a medical board of attributability or aggravation, the administrative authorities cannot touch it. That is the law laid down by the high courts and the Supreme Court and that is the law of the land. Now the last question, there is some misunderstanding about our pension disability wherein it had been reduced from 75% to 50%. There's a misunderstanding about our pension cases having been reduced from 75% to 50% in 1973. What is your take on this? I haven't understood the question at all. Can you repeat the question? That was the entire sense. Probably we'll call you Viji and Rupande. So thank you, Navdeep. Those were the questions and it was quite illuminating session. And tomorrow, friends, we will have a session on proof and presumption under law by Justice P. N. Prakash, a former judge from Madras High Court. Who's taken a credit with us at 5 PM. Thank you, everyone. Thank you so much, Mr. Chetlaat. Thank you for your enlightening debates always because it's, it's, very helpful in spreading the concept of law, you know, much beyond offices and houses and four walls of where we live in. And thank you so much for inviting the public with very different topics every day or every week or every month.