Smt Bugal Kanwar WdO Ex JWO GL Chouhan vs UOI & Others on 20 March 2026

O R D E R

20.03.2026

1. By way of this Application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has prayed for directing the Respondents to grant Disability Element of Disability Pension along with Rounding Off Benefits to 50% from the date of his invalidment from Service and that the arrears be paid along with interest @ 12% per annum. During the pendency of the OA, the Original Applicant, JWO GL Chauhan expired on 11.07.2023 and the Applicant, Smt Bugal Kanwar, being the legally wedded wife and NOK of the Original Applicant, was taken on record as Legal Heir vide this Tribunal Order dt 08.09.2023.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Original Applicant are that the Original Applicant was enrolled in the Air Force on 20.07.1966. While in service, due to stress and strains of Air Force Service, he suffered from Disabilities, viz.,

(i) “Primary Hypertension” and (ii) “PS Cataract” and was placed in low medical category and retained in service. However, he was not allowed to serve upto the age of superannuation and after rendering only 32 years of service, he was discharged from Service on 31.07.2000 under clause “on fulfilling conditions of enrolment”. The duly constituted Release Medical Board assessed his disabilities, viz., (i) “Primary Hypertension” @ 30% and (ii) “PS Cataract Old V- 67” @ 15-19% with Composite disability @ 30% for five years and opined the same as Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated by Air Force Service (NANA). The Original Applicant was granted Service Pension for life, however, the claim for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension claim was rejected on the grounds of the disabilities being NANA. The Applicant placed reliance on Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Dharamvir Singh Vs UOI & Ors, (2013) 7 SCC 316 and submitted that the Original Applicant suffered from the disabilities while in service and, hence, his disabilities should be considered as Attributable to Air Force Service and, he should be granted Disability Pension from the date of his discharge from Service. First Appeal preferred by the Original Applicant was rejected by the Competent Authority. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed present OA.

3. The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement. While not disputing the basic facts submitted by the Applicant, the Respondents have submitted that mere occurrence of any disease in service does not mean that it has happened due to service factors. There are certain other factors also which instigate the occurrence of disease. Primary and essential hypertension tends to be familial and has progressive age related onset which is likely to be a consequence of an interaction between environmental and genetic factors. In the present case, the Original Applicant was detected to be hypertensive during routine medical examination at the age of 43 years. He offered no complaints, a chronic smoker with no family history of hypertension, diabetes. The Respondents have placed reliance on Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others Vs. AV Damodaran (dead) through LRs and Others, reported in (2009) 9 SCC 140, and submitted that after perusal of medical records and physically examining the Original Applicant, his disabilities were considered as NANA and, hence, being a body of medical experts, the opinion of the Release Medical Board has to be given due value, weight and credence.

4. During the course of arguments, Learned Counsel for the Applicant placed reliance on Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu judgment dt 03.11.2025 in the case of UOI & Ors Vs Nirmal Singh Jamwal and Ors and submitted that the Applicant is entitled for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension duly rounded off to 50% from the date of his discharge from Service.

5. We have carefully examined the averments of both the Applicant and the Respondents and the material placed on record.

6. Paragraph 43, Chapter IV of Guide to Medical Officers, 2008 reads as under:- “43. Hypertension. The first consideration should be to determine whether the hypertension is primary or secondary. If secondary, entitlement considerations should be directed to the underlying disease process (eg Nephritis), and it is unnecessary to notify hypertension separately.

As in the case of atherosclerosis, entitlement of attributability is never appropriate, but where disablement for essential hypertension appears to have arisen or become worse in service, the question whether service compulsions have caused aggravation must be considered. However, in certain cases the disease has been reported after long and frequent spells of service in field/HAA/active operational area. Such cases can be explained by variable response exhibited by different individuals to stressful situations. Primary hypertension will be considered aggravated if it occurs while serving in Field areas, HAA, CI Ops areas or prolonged afloat service.”

7. With regard to onset of the disease due to lifestyle, relevant extract of Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment dt 12.02.2025 in Civil Appeal No 773/2024 in the case of Sarevesh Kumar Vs UOI & Ors, reads as under:- “2. ……. it is trite position of medical law that an ischemic stroke occurs when a blood clot or fatty plaque (atherosclerosis) blocks an artery leading to brain, restricting oxygen which reduces blood flow and causing brain tissue damage and the medical opinion categorizing risk factors includes high blood pressure (hypertension), smoking, diabetes high cholesterol, ie., dyslipidemia, obesity and artial fibrillation. In the present case, the Medical Review Board has clearly opined that on account of continuous smoking, the disease of “Stroke Ischemic RT MCA Territory” attributable to the appellant could have occasioned and as such Medical Board has concluded that it is neither attributable to service nor aggravated due to service conditions.”

8. With regard to attributability/aggravation of a disability/death, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, Govt of India & Ors Vs Dharambir Singh, Civil Appeal No 4981 of 2012, decided on 20/9/2019 gave its opinion as follows:- “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.

(c) The act, omission or commission which results in injury to the member of the force and consequent disability or fatality must relate to military service in some manner or the other, in other words, the act must flow as a matter of necessity from military service.

9. If a disease is accepted as having arisen in service, it must also be established that the conditions of military service determined or contributed to the onset of the disease and that the conditions were due to the circumstances of duty in military service. In this regard, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs Ex Sep R Munusamy, Civil Appeal No 6536 of 2021, decided on 19/7/2022, observed as follows :- “20. Rule 14(b) of the Entitlement Rules relied upon in Rajbir Singh (supra) is not attracted in this case, because the Respondent was not discharged on account of any disease, ailment or disability, but for administrative reasons. The Rule is only attracted when a disease leads to an individual’s discharge or death. Such disease is ordinarily to be deemed to have arisen in service, if no note of it was made at the time of the individual’s acceptance for military service, but not always. In any case, the presumption under Rule 14(b) of the Entitlement Rules is rebuttable. If medical opinion holds, for reasons to be stated, that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior to acceptance for service, the disease will not be deemed to have arisen during service. There was no direction on the Review Medical Board to give any opinion as to the question of whether the ailment of the Respondent could or could not have been detected at the time of his recruitment. Furthermore, the mere fact that an ailment or disease may have arisen in service does not mean that the ailment or disease is attributable to service conditions”. Further, as per Para 23 of the ibid Judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that, “moreover, as provided in Rule 14 (c) of the

Entitlement Rules, if a disease were accepted as having arisen in service, it must also be established that the conditions of military service determined or contributed to the onset of the disease and that the conditions were due to the circumstances of duty in military service”.

10. Further, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others Vs. AV Damodaran (dead) through LRs and Others, reported in (2009) 9 SCC 140, clearly brings out the following principles with regard to primacy of opinion of the Medical Board:- “8. 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. 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 invaliding disease/disability and service conditions, draws 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. 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 the form of AFMSF-16. The Invalidating Medical Board forms its opinion/recommendations 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.

9. 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 manner 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”.

11. With regard to causal connection between disability or death and military service, Para 6 of Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 2008, reads as follows :- “6. For award of disability pension/special family pension, a Causal Connection between disability or death and military service has to be established by appropriate authorities”.

12. It is a fact that the primary hypertension may be attributable to or aggravated due to Service factors in certain cases. However, in the present case, it is evident that the Applicant’s Husband was diagnosed with Primary

Hypertension in Oct 1993 at Air Force Station, Hakimpet and there were no extenuating factors of military service which contributed to the onset of this disability. Similarly, no military service conditions were responsible for the disability (ii), viz., PS Cataract which first came to light in Dec 1997 while the Original Applicant was serving at Air Force Station, New Delhi, ie., peace station. Hence, the disabilities of the Original Applicant had no causal connection to military service. Moreover, nothing is placed on record by the Applicant which establishes that the Applicant’s Husband was exposed to service related stress and strain which resulted in the Applicant suffering from the aforesaid diseases. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Disabilities of the Original Applicant had no causal connection to military service and, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension.

13. Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh judgment in the case of Nirman Singh Jamwal & Ors (Supra) relied upon by the Applicant in the OA is distinguishable and cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of this case as in the present case, it is clearly established that the Original Applicant’s disabilities had no causal connection with military service as opined by the duly constituted RMB, a body of medical experts.

14. In-fine, we are of the considered view that the OA lacks merit on all counts and, hence, is dismissed. Miscellaneous Application(s) pending, if any, also stand disposed off.

15. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-