Smt Ameen Bano wdo Late Spr Asgar Khan (Army) vs UOI & Others on 13 February 2026

**O R D E R**

**13/02/2026**

**MA No 103/2015**

1. 1. The Original Applicant has filed this MA, praying for condonation of delay involved in filing the OA, which shall be considered alongwith the OA.

**OA No 398/2012**

1. 2. The Original Applicant, Ex Sepoy Asgar Khan, had filed this OA praying for directing the Respondents to produce the entire record of the applicant, all orders/letters rejecting the disability claim of the applicant may be taken on record and be set aside and that the Respondents may be directed to grant and pay disability pension to him wef 01/6/1964 for life alongwith interest @12% per annum. He had also prayed for grant of rounding off benefits of disability pension wef 01/1/1996 in terms of Govt of India Order dated 31/1/2001 and that, without prejudice to the prayer of grant of disability pension and in alternative the Respondents may also please be directed to grant Invalid Pension to the applicant wef 01/6/1964 for life, as also bringing the applicant before a fresh re-assessment medical board to assess his present state of disability, besides granting him heavy costs for the litigations and for continued harassment to the applicant.

3. During the pendency of the OA, the Original Applicant expired on 26/6/2014 and based on the MA No 428/2014 filed for impleading the LR of the deceased original applicant, widow of the deceased, ie, Smt Aammeen Bano, was substituted in place of the Original Applicant, vide Order dated 18/12/2014.

4. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Original Applicant are that the original applicant was enrolled in the Army (Bombay Engineer Group) on 23/5/1961. At the time of enrolment, the applicant was subjected to extensive medical examination and was found to be physically and mentally in sound health. No note with regard to any patent or latent symptoms of any disease or other medical infirmity was made by the medical authorities at the time of enrolment. The applicant does not have any family history of Hyperidrosis Palm and Soles or of any other disease of nervous system. He had completed his basic military training satisfactorily and joined his Unit where he performed his duties satisfactorily. He had also participated in Operations from Jan 1963 to 12/4/1963 in Assam Area where he contracted the disability due to stress and strain of service. However, he was invalided out from service on 31/5/1964 due to the disability, "Hyperidrosis Palms and Soles", in Medical Category 'EEE', under Army Rule 13 (3) Item III (iii), Annexure A/1. Disability of the applicant was assessed more than 20% and it was considered as aggravated by military service by the invaliding medical board. However, the finding of medical board was reversed by the pension sanctioning authority, prejudice to the interest of the applicant. Disability pension claim was rejected by the PCDA (P) vide their letter dated 02/6/1964. The first appeal filed by him against rejection of his claim was also rejected vide Order dated 23/4/1965, so was the second appeal, vide letter dated 17/6/1966. Nor the request of the original applicant for supply of a copy of the invaliding medical board proceedings was acceded to by the Respondents. Even the legal notice dated 20/12/2011 served upon the Respondents had also met the same fate as of his appeals, vide reply dated 10/1/2012. He had further submitted that the sanctioning authority/invaliding medical board had committed serious illegality and error while recording the findings that the invaliding disability (ID) of the original applicant was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. The board has violated the provisions of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1961, combined with Regulation 173 and 173A of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961 and Regulation 423 of Regulations for the Medical Services for Armed Forces, 1983, make it obligatory on the part of the medical board to state whether the disability was present at the time of enrolment or not and whether it could not have been detected on medical examination of the individual prior to acceptance of service. The authorities had to record reasons as to why the disability which was present at the time of acceptance for service could not be detected and if cogent reasons are not given by the medical board in its findings, a presumption has to be drawn that the disability has arisen during service. By now it is a settled position of law as laid down by various judgments of the Hon'ble Courts that, the reasons means a speaking detailed order showing application of mind that why the disease which may be in embryonic stage at the time of induction in service could not have been detected. It has further been held that the reasons given by the medical board like, "constitutional' or psychosomatic' is not a sufficient reason to show that the disease could not be detected at the time of induction in service. In case of the applicant no note was made at the time of his enrolment in the Army that he was suffering from any disease like, "Hyperidrosis Palms and Soles" or any other such disease nor any reasons have been given by the invaliding medical board, hence, it is presumed that invaliding ID arose while the applicant was serving in the Army. Even otherwise also the invaliding medical board has accepted that ID arose while the applicant was serving in military but had opined that it is not connected to service. He further submitted that he was eligible for grant of disability pension in terms of Regulation 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961, Part I, and denial of the same was illegal, unjust and arbitrary. Moreover, since he was invalided out from service due to the disability attributable/aggravated by military service there was no good reason for denial of disability pension. Further, the original applicant is entitled for invalid pension in terms of regulation 197 of pension regulations for the army 1961, without prejudice to the right of disability pension. He is also entitled for re-assessment of his disability by a re-survey medical board in terms of Regulations 187 and 178A of pension regulations for the Army 1961, Part I. Having been aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA, praying for relief.

5. During the course of final hearing, counsel for the applicant, in support of his arguments for grant of relief to the applicant, has placed on record the copies of the following Orders of various Benches of the Armed Forces Tribunal :-

- (a) AFT, Principal Bench, Order dated 04/2/2020 in OA No 520 of 2014 in the case of Sepoy Bijendra Singh Kushwah Vs UOI & Ors.

- (b) AFT, Regional Bench, Kochi Order dated 27/1/2014 in OA No 121 of 2010 in the case of Sep TB Habib Vs UOI & Ors.

- (c) AFT, Regional Bench, Chandimandir, Order dated 13/9/2017 in TA No 12 of 2017 in the case of UOI & Ors Vs Bir Singh.

6. Counsel for the applicant has also filed brief facts and written arguments in favour of his prayer, reiterating the facts already mentioned in the OA, alongwith Citations, granting relief to invalided out personnel.

7. The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement. They have submitted that the original applicant, Ex Sapper Asgar Khan was enrolled in the Army on 23/5/1961 and was invalided out from service on 31/5/1964 under Rule 13 (3) Item III (iii) of Army Rules 1954 being medically unfit for further service in low medical category, 'EEE' as a case of Hyperidrosis Palms and Soles" He had rendered three years and nine days of service. The Invaliding Medical Board of the original applicant was carried out at MH, Poona, on 22/2/1964, which assessed the disability @20% and considered it as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, not connected with military service being constitutional in nature, the board proceedings were approved by the competent authority on 9/3/1964, ie, DDMS, Maharashtra and Gujarat Area. Although the disability of the original applicant was assessed @20%, it was of no consequence as the disability has been considered as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service and, hence, he is not entitled for grant of disability pension under the provisions of Para 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961, Part I. Accordingly, disability pension was rejected by the PCDA (P) vide their letter dated 02/6/1964, which was communicated to the applicant vide Record Office letter dated 22/6/1964. However, a sum of Rs 150/- on account of Invalid Gratuity was paid to the original applicant. His subsequent, First and Second Appeals were also rejected. Respondents have further amplified that assessment of disability of the original applicant @20% had no consequence once the disability has been considered as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service as also not connected with service, as the attributability factor of a disability is the first and foremost requirement for entitlement of disability pension to any individual under the provisions of Para 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961, Part I. With regard to the plea for grant of benefit of broadbanding of disability element, such benefit is entitled to those personnel who are invalided out from service with disability regarded as attributable to or aggravated by military service and also with percentage of disablement assessed @20% and above by the invaliding medical board. Also, the original applicant had approached the Hon'ble Court after a gap of more than 48 years from the date of his discharge from service, which is highly objectionable and time barred, in terms of judgment dated 10/8/2009 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in the case of Ex Rect Habib Khan Vs UOI & Ors, in CWP No 13848/1992. The Respondents have also placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sapper AV Damodaran Vs UOI & Ors, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has upheld the sanctity of the duly constituted medical board. Further, medical examination of candidates during the course of recruitment process is carried out in batches by a recruiting medical officer who is an MBBS degree holder and not a classified specialist and hence, signs and symptoms of every ailment/disease may not be detected by him during his initial medical examination. Hence, contention of the counsel for the applicant that the original applicant was free from sign/symptoms of any disease/ailment including the constitutional in nature is

vehemently denied and refuted. The medical test at the time of entry is not exhaustive, but its scope is limited to broad physical examination and, therefore, it may not detect some dormant disease. Besides, certain hereditary constitutional and congenital diseases may manifest late in life, irrespective of service conditions. The mere fact that a disease has manifested during military service does not per se establish attributability to or aggravation by military service, Annexure R/5. In view of the narration herein, the Respondents have submitted that the case of the original applicant lacks substance and merits of the case and, hence, the case deserves outright dismissal.

8. We have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

9. It is apparent from the material on record that Late Sep Asgar Khan, the Original Applicant in this case, was enrolled in the Army on 23/5/1961 and was Invalided out from service wef 31/5/1964 under Rule 13 (3) Item III (iii) of Army Rules, 1954 being medically unfit for further service in the Army. He had rendered three years and nine days of service at the time of his invalidation from service. The duly constituted IMB assessed the disability of the original applicant, " Hyperidrosis Palms and Soles" @20% and contrary to the original applicant's claim it was considered it as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service as also not connected with military service. He had rendered three years and nine days of service in the Army. First and Second Appeals of the original applicant against rejection of his disability pension claim were also rejected by the competent authority. Perusal of medical board proceedings dated 14/2/1964 as stated by Col ML Gaind, Advisor in Dermatology reveals that the original applicant had been suffering from profuse sweating of the palms and soles for the last three years and the disability was of constitutional in origin which clearly establish that the disability was of genetic and pre-existing which escaped attention at the time of his enrolment in the Army as the medical examination at the time of enrolment is not very exhaustive and cannot be held attributable to or aggravated by military service by no stretch of imagination.

10. As per the Judgment dated 20/8/2009 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence Vs Damodaran AV (Dead) through LRs & Ors, Civil Appeal No 5678 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) 23727 of 2008, it was held that the Medical Board is a Specialised Authority composed of expert medical doctors and it is the final authority to give opinion with regard to grant of disability element or otherwise. It was also stated that the judicial authority cannot overturn the opinion of the medical experts as there is no wherewithal with such authorities to express an opinion on the assessment of IMB/RMB. The relevant observations of each of the Hon'ble Judges in the ibid Order are being reproduced as follows :- *"Hon'ble Dalveer Bhandari, J., speaking for the Bench, observed as follows: "17. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I am of the considered view that the Medical Board is an expert body and its opinion is entitled to be given due weight, value and credence. In the instant case, the Medical Board has clearly opined that the disability of late Shri A.V.Damodaran was neither attributable nor aggravated by the military service. In my considered view, both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court have not considered this case in proper perspective and in the light of the judgments of this Court. The legal representatives of A.V.Damodaran are not entitled to the disability pension." Hon'ble Dr. M.K.Sharma, J., in His Lordship's concurring judgment, has observed as follows:*

*"30. When an individual is found suffering from any disease or has sustained injury, he is examined by the medical experts who would not only examine him but also ascertain the nature of disease/injury and also record a decision as to whether the said personnel is to be placed in a medical category which is lower than 'AYE' (fit category) and whether temporarily or permanently. They also give a medical assessment and advice as to whether the individual is to be brought before the Release/Invalidating Medical Board.*

*31. The said Release/Invalidating Medical Board generally consists of three doctors and they, keeping in view the clinical profile, the date and place of onset of invalidating disease/disability and service conditions, draw a conclusion as to whether the disease/injury has a causal connection with military service or not. On the basis of the same they recommend (a) attributability, or (b) aggravation, or (c) whether connection with service.*

*32. The second aspect which is also examined is the extent to which the functional capacity of the individual is impaired. The same is adjudged and an assessment is made of the percentage of the disability suffered by the said personnel which is*

recorded so that the case of the personnel could be considered for grant of disability element of pension. Another aspect which is taken notice of at this stage is the duration for which the disability is likely to continue. The same is assessed/recommended in view of the disease being capable of being improved.

33. All the aforesaid aspects are recorded and recommended in the form of AFMSF-16. The Invalidating Medical Board forms its opinion/recommendation on the basis of the medical report, injury report, court of enquiry proceedings, if any, charter of duties relating to peace or field area and of course, the physical examination of the individual.

34. The aforesaid provisions came to be interpreted by the various decisions rendered by this Court in which it has been consistently held that the opinion given by the doctors or the medical board shall be given weightage and primacy in the matter for ascertainment as to whether or not the injuries/illness sustained was due to or was aggravated by the military service which contributed to invalidation from the military service"

17 On the basis of the aforesaid observations and facts and circumstances of the case, the Apex Court held that the respondent therein was not entitled to claim for disability pension as the Medical Board had ruled out the possibility of the disease Schizophrenia being attributable to or aggravated by the military service and accordingly relied upon the medical opinion.

11. In Union of India vs. Jujhar Singh, the Apex Court reiterated the aforesaid principles and propounded mainly two principles, in para 22, as follows: firstly, "... .. a personnel can be granted disability pension only if he is found suffering from disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service and recorded by Service Medical Authorities" In para 23 of the judgment, the Apex Court considered the relevancy of the finding on the nexus between the act resulting in the injury/disease and the normal expected standard of duties and way of life expected from a member of the Armed Forces and held as follows: "...The member of the armed forces who is claiming disability pension must be able to show a normal nexus between the act, omission or commission resulting in an injury to the person and the normal expected standard of duties and way of life expected from a member of such force".

11. The question on attributability or aggravation, where the disability or fatality occurs when the individual was on duty/authorized leave of any kind, has been settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Secretary, Government of India & Others Vs Dharambir Singh in Civil Appeal No 4981/2012 decided on 20.09.2019, relevant portion of which reads as under :- *"36. We find that summing up of the following guiding factors by the Tribunal in Jagtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors and approved in Sukhwant Singh and in Vijay Kumar do not warrant any change or modification and the claim of disability pension is required to be dealt with accordingly :-*

*(a) The mere fact of a person being on 'duty' or otherwise, at the place of posting or on leave, is not the sole criteria for deciding attributability of disability/death. There has to be a relevant and reasonable causal connection, howsoever remote, between the incident resulting in such disability/death and military service for it to be attributable. This conditionality applies even when a person is posted and present in his unit. It should similarly apply when he is on leave; notwithstanding both being considered as 'duty'.*

*(b) If the injury suffered by the member of the Armed Force is the result of an act alien to the sphere of military service or in no way be connected to his being on duty as understood in the sense contemplated by Rule 12 of the Entitlement Rules 1982, it would not be legislative intention or nor to our mind would be permissible approach to generalise the statement that every injury suffered during such period of leave would necessarily be attributable".*

12. Moreover, Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, while disposing off an appeal filed by Union of India against the verdict of AFT in the case titled UOI Vs Bhaskaran N (WP (C) No 8414 of 2024) has mentioned as follows :- *"...we are of the view that the AFT will not be justified in rejecting the opinion of the Medical Board in a casual manner in any case. Unless the Tribunal is satisfied that the procedure adopted by the Board was not in accordance with the Rules or binding Guidelines or that the Board failed to take into account any relevant materials or facts or has not given reasons for its conclusions, the Tribunal will not be justified in rejecting the opinion of the Board. If the Tribunal finds the opinion of the Board unacceptable for any such reasons it will be proper on the part of the Tribunal, except in case where there is long delay, to refer the applicant seeking disability pension for examination by a Review Medical Board. Substituting the opinion of the Medical Board with its own conclusions by the Tribunal may not be a proper approach. It is also be noted by the Tribunal that the opinion of the Medical Board is only recommendatory and is subject to acceptance by Pension Sanctioning Authority. Therefore, the Tribunal*

*shall bear in mind that the opinion of the Medical Board does not confer any indefeasible right on the employee to claim disability pension".*

13. It is also prudent to observe the observations made by the Hon'ble Principal Bench, Armed Forces Tribunal in the Order dated 19/5/2023 in OA No 927 of 2022 in the case of Ex Hav Ashok Kumar Vs UOI & Ors, which reads as follows :- *"16. We must reiterate that we are not medical specialists to scrutinize the opinion of the medical boards, and it would not only be beyond our jurisdiction but also hazardous if this Court were to examine the accuracy of such expert opinion, based on competing medical opinions. The scope of judicial review does not entail the Court embarking upon such misadventures. As far as judicial review of decisions based on medical expert opinion is concerned, there is no doubt that wide latitude is provided to the executive in such matters and the Court does not have the expertise to appreciate and decide on merits of medical issues on the basis of divergent medical opinion".*

14. Also, this Tribunal in its Order dated 02/5/2025 in OA No 325/2021 in the case of Ex NC (E) Rati Ram Gurjar Vs UOI & Ors, held that the specific opinion rendered by RMB/IMB is sacrosanct and cannot be tampered with by non medical experts.

15. In view of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the applicant was discharged from service due to the disability which was pre-existing, which escaped attention at the time of his enrolment in the Army and had no causal connection with military service, as opined by the IMB. Thus, the original applicant was not eligible for grant of disability pension, and, consequently, his LR, ie, the present applicant is also not eligible for grant of any relief on this score.

16. As regards the citations produced by the Counsel for the Applicant, it has been noticed that the case law settled in the cases by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters titled, "Sapper AV Damodaran Vs UOI & Ors" and "Union of India Vs Jujhar Singh (supra) were not taken into consideration before over ruling the opinion of the medical experts (IMB/RMB, as the case may be). Moreover, the constitution of each member of the Armed Forces in general is different and one particular disease might manifests in some individual due to service factors but the same yardstick cannot be applied in all such personnel.

17. Apart from the above, we also find that the Application stands barred by inordinate delay and laches of more than four decades (48 years) with no cogent reason for the inexplicable delay and it does not deserve to be entertained. For this reason, the Application by the Applicant is totally misconceived. In view of the above and in the light of the principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C. Jacob Vs. Director of Geology and Mining & Anr., reported in (2008) 10 SCC 115, wherein it was held that a stale claim cannot be revived for grant of Pensionary benefits, the instant case cannot be entertained. The case is also squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs Rajwanti, in Civil Appeal No 583-584 of 2017, decided on 16/1/2017.

18. In fine, we are of the considered view that we find no merit in any of the pleas of the Applicant and, therefore, the OA is dismissed.

19. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed off.

Sd/-xxx

**(SANJIV MITTAL)** **MEMBER (A)**

Sd/-xxx

**(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR)** **MEMBER (J)**

cda/-