Smt Santosh Kumari wo late Dfr Vijay Pal (Army) vs UOI & Others on 1 April 2026

O R D E R

01/4/2026

MA No 503/2013

1. The applicant has filed this MA praying for condonation of delay of more than one year involved in filing the OA. The MA would be considered alongwith the OA.

OA No 264/2013

2. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the applicant, who is the widow of late Dfr Vijay Pal, has filed this OA with the following prayers :- (a) The Respondents may be directed to produce the relevant record on the basis of which the disability pension was denied;

(b) Annexure A/1, letter dated 25/1/2012 may be quashed and set aside being arbitrary and illegal;

(c) The Respondents may kindly be directed to release disability pension in favour of the applicant from the date of invalidment, ie, 13/5/1987 alongwith arrears of pension with interest @18% per annum and the benefit of broadbanding of disability pension @100% may be directed in favour of the applicant for the period from 13/5/1987 to 09/11/1994 as the disability was between 75% to 100% and the arrears may also be ordered to be paid alongwith interest as applicable; (d) The Respondents may be directed to make the payment of enhanced rate of Family Pension from 13/5/2012, ie, from the date of death of husband of the applicant till 14/11/2016; (e) Suitable compensation by way of costs may be paid to the applicant for mental agony and litigation; and (f) Any other relief which is deemed appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present matter may kindly be granted in favour of the humble applicant.

3. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the husband of the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 02/2/1971 in medical category SHAPE-1 and no disease or disability was noted in his enrolment papers by the recruiting medical officer. While in service, husband of the applicant was admitted in Command Hospital, Chandigarh on 07/11/1986 due to the diagnosis, “Schizophrenia”. During his admission, no proper medical treatment was given to him and as there was no improvement in his disease, husband of the applicant was invalided out from service on 13/5/1987 in medical category EEE (Psychological) based on the Invaliding Medical Board held on 08/4/1987, which was approved by PH & HP Area. He was granted service pension for life. Husband of the applicant died on 09/11/1994 and thereafter, the applicant was granted ordinary rate of family pension vide PPO dated 27/1/1988. Husband of the applicant was mentally ill and was not in a position to understand the position of his entitlement of disability pension and, hence, the applicant sent a legal notice dated 26/12/2011 through her counsel for grant of disability pension. She further submits that since the husband of the applicant suffered from the disability while in service, the disability liable to be considered as attributable to and aggravated by military service and rejection of disability pension by the CCDA (P) was illegal and his case was covered under Rule 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961, Part I. Having been aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA, praying for relief.

4. Vide Reply Statement, the Respondents have submitted that Army No 1047642W Dfr Vijay Pal, husband of the applicant, was enrolled in the Army on 02/2/1971 and was discharged from service on 13//5/1987 under Rule 13 (3) Item III

(iii) being found unfit for further service due to his disability, “Schizophrenia”. He had rendered 16 years, three months and 12 days of service and was granted all admissible benefits including service pension for life. Contrary to the statement of the applicant, the Respondents have stated that the husband of the applicant was admitted to Command Hospital, Chandigarh on 07/11/1986 for the same disability, and during his hospitalization, proper medical treatment was given to him, but there was no improvement in his disease. Therefore, the Invaliding Medical Board was held at the Command Hospital, Chandigarh on 08/4/1987 based on which the husband of the applicant was invalided out from service. Disability of the husband of the applicant was considered as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service and was assessed @ 40% for two years. Rejection of disability pension to the applicant was communicated to the applicant vide letter dated 08/1/1988 by the Record Office with an advice to him to prefer an Appeal against rejection of his claim within six months, if so desired, but he did not prefer any appeal within the stipulated timeframe of six months. Upon the demise of her husband on 09/11/1994, the applicant was granted enhanced rate of Ordinary Family Pension wef 10/11/1994 to 09/11/2011/(sic/2001) for seven years vide PPO dated 27/1/1988 which was also communicated to the applicant vide Record letter dated 25/1/2012, advising her to contact her PDA. Further, in terms of Para 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961, Part I, husband of the applicant is not eligible for grant of disability element of disability pension as the disability was considered as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service and consequently, the benefit of rounding off is also not admissible. Moreover, husband of the applicant, during his lifetime, never approached/appealed for grant of disability pension, being fully aware of the rule position as his disability was assessed by the duly constituted IMB as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. In view of the factual narration herein, the Respondents have prayed for dismissing the OA with exemplary costs.

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

6. It is evident from the record that the husband of the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 02/2/1971 and was discharged from service on 13/5/1987 under Rule 13

(3) Item III (iii) on the ground of his being considered unsuitable for further military service due to the disability, “Schizophrenia”. He had rendered a little over 16 years and was granted service pension, apart from all other admissible terminal benefits. The duly constituted IMB assessed the said disability of the husband of the applicant, @40% for two years and considered it as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Rejection of his disability element of disability pension was communicated to the applicant vide Record Office letter dated 08/1/1988 with an advice to prefer an Appeal, but the husband of the applicant failed to respond nor did he approach the Record Office/competent authority for grant of disability element of disability pension. Upon demise of husband of the applicant on 09/11/1994, the applicant was granted enhanced rate of Family Pension for seven years as admissiblewef 10/11/1994 and thereafter Ordinary Family Pension for life.

7. On the issue of primacy of the Medical Boards, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs Ravinder Kumar in Civil Appeal No 1837/2009, decided on 23/5/2012, viewed that :- “5. We are of the view that the opinion of the Medical Board which is an expert body must be given due weight, value and credence. Person claiming disability pension must establish that the injury suffered by him bears a causal connection with military service.

6. In the instant case, the Medical Board has opined as under:- “ID. Generalised Tonic Seizure. MA opined that ID is genetic in origin, not connected with service. Thus, in view of the above, it is evident that the ailment with which respondent has been suffering from is neither aggravated nor attributable to the Army Service”.

8. Further, on a careful reading of the Judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7672 of 2019 (Diary No.27850 of 2017) in the case of Ex CfnNarsingh Yadav vs UoI, the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to view :- “that though the provision of grant of Disability Pension is a beneficiary one, mental disorder at the time of recruitment cannot normally be detected when a person behaves normally. Since there is a possibility of non-detection of mental disorder, therefore, it cannot be said that Schizophrenia is presumed to be attributed to or aggravated to military service. “

It is clear that the Supreme Court Judgment (supra) amplifies that mental disorders which lie outside the realm of being medically detected during the enrolment process cannot be claimed to be attributable to rigours of service at a later stage:- “Relapsing forms of mental disorders which have intervals of normality and Epilepsy are undetectable diseases while carrying out physical examination on enrolment, unless adequate history is given at the time by the member”.

9. The question on attributability or aggravation, where the disability or fatality occurs when the individual was on duty or 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'.”

10. In view of the above facts and based on the Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), it is quite clear that the husband’s Applicant’s Invaliding Disease, “Schizophrenia” falls outside the purview of attributability/aggravation to military service,thus making him ineligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension. Since the husband of the Applicant was not entitled to receive disability element of disability pension, his LR, ie, the applicant herein, is also not entitled for any relief in this regard.

11. Apart from the above, we also find that the Application stands barred by inordinate delay and laches of more than 26 yearsfrom the date of discharge of the husband of the applicant and 19 years after his death with no cogent reason for the inexplicable delay and, hence, 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 is 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.

OA No 264/2013 with MA No 503/2013

Smt Santosh Kumari, widow of Army No 1047642 late Dfr Vijay Pal

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

13. No order on costs.

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

(SANJIV MITAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

cda/-