Ex NC(E) Amar lal vs UOI & Others on 17 April 2026

O R D E R

17/04/2026

1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA with the following prayers :- (a) Quash and set aside the Impugned Order passed by the Release Medical Board held on 12/8/2013 and the Orders dated 15/9/2014 and 28/3/2016 passed by the First and Second Appellate Authorities respectively, vide which the disability pension claim of the applicant has been rejected;

(b) Hold that the applicant is entitled to disability pension as admissible under rules based on the assessment made by the medical board with all consequential benefits and arrears from the date of his retirement alongwith interest @18%;

(c) Pay the percentage for computation of disability pension to the Applicant by reckoning disability @50%; (d) Grant such relief/reliefs which in the facts and circumstances of the case may do complete justice to the applicant and (e) Award of cost of this application to the applicant.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the Air Force as a ‘Washer up’ Trade on 28/7/1976 and at the time of his induction in service, he was medically examined and was found fit for the service. During the tenure of his service, the applicant was posted at various places like Naliya, Jodhpur, Galwara and Gandhinagar. He was also ordered to perform the duties of collection of ration and had to load and unload the ration and other goods from the service vehicles. To the misfortune of the applicant, on 26/1/2004, he had sustained injuries on his spine due to a fall from height resulting into fracture. Even after sustaining the injury, the applicant was ordered to perform the duties of Lascar Trade, ie, collection of ration including loading and unloading of ration and other goods from service vehicle for the remaining tenure of his service which admittedly resulted in weakness and stress. The continuous stressand strain of work affected the health of the applicant adversely, developing into a disease, “Hypertension”, being permanent in nature, which was detected on 30/3/2009 at Gandhinagar Station while the applicant was undergoing review of his earlier Spine injury. Further, on attaining the age of superannuation the applicant was discharged from service on 31/5/2013 after completion of 36 years, nine months and 13 days of service. The Release Medical Board (RMB) assessed the disabilities of the applicant, “Fracture Spinous Process CV 6” and (ii) “Primary Hypertension” @15 to 19% and @ 30% respectively for life, with composite assessment @40% for life. However, the applicant was not granted disability pension in terms of Regulation 153 of Pension Regulations for the Air Force 1961, Part I, as the disabilities of the applicant were considered as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Both the first and second appeals of the applicant against rejection of his claim for disability pension were rejected by the Respondents. The applicant in support of his arguments, placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dharamvir Singh Vs UOI &Ors, (2013) 7 SCC 316 as also in the case of UOI &Ors Vs Rajbir Singh, in Civil Appeal No 2904 of 2011, decided on 13/2/2015. He further submitted that in view of the proposition of law settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in these judgments, the disability of the applicant, “Primary Hypertension”, which he suffered on account of stress and strain of service, is very much attributable to and aggravated by military service and denial of disability pension to him is wholly arbitrary and illegal. Having been aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA, praying for relief.

3. During the course of Virtual Hearing held on 15/4/2026, counsel for the applicant has placed on record a copy of the Judgment dated 23/4/2025 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bijender Singh Vs UOI &Ors, Civil Appeal Nos 4458-4459 of 2024, wherein the opinion of the RMB categorizing the disability of the applicant therein was invalidated.

4. The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement. While not disputing the basic facts, the Respondents have stated that the applicant was discharged from Air Force service on 31/5/2013 on attaining the age of superannuation. He had rendered 36 years and 308 days of regular service. Initially he was found to be obese at the time of annual medical examination and was, therefore, recommended to be downgraded to low medical category wef 16/10/2000 for the disability, “Obesity”. He sustained injury in both his hands while driving his scooty, when it hit a four wheeler due to sudden application of break on 03/1/2003, which also resulted in his downgradation to low medical category wef 07/4/2003 as a case of Fracture Scaphoid (Lt). The applicant was further diagnosed as a case of Primary Hypertension and was recommended to be downgraded to low medical category A4G4 (T-24) as per AFMSF 15 of 18/4/2009alongwith his other disability, “Fracture Spinous Process CV6”. The RMB held on 29/11/2012 found the applicant fitto be released from service in medical category A4Gr (P) for the disabilities, “Fracture

Spinous Process CV6” and (ii) “Primary Hypertension”. The RMB considered both the disabilities of the applicant as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service and assessed (i) @15-19% and (ii) @30% respectively for life, with composite assessment @ 40% for life. Moreover, the applicant sustained injury, “Fracture Spinous Process CV 6” while at home and had no causal connection with the injury sustained by the applicant and the military service. Accordingly, the applicant was not granted disability element of disability pension in terms of extant provisions. Both the First and Second Appeals of the applicant against rejection of his claim were also rejected by the competent authority. Under the circumstances, the Respondents have prayed that the OA filed by the applicant is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs and pass the Order in their favour.

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

6. It is evident from the material on record that the applicant was a Non Combatant Enrolled in the Air Force and was discharged from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31/5/2013. He had rendered a little over 36 years of service and was granted service pension for life for the qualifying service. Since the applicant was in low medical category, upon examination the duly constituted RMB assessed his disabilities, “Fracture Spinous Process CV6” and (ii) “ Primary Hypertension” @15-19% and 30% for life respectively with Composite assessment @40% for life for both the disabilities. However, both the disabilities were considered as neither attributable to nor aggravated by Air Force Service. The first disability of the applicant, ie, Fracture Spinous Process CV6 was sustained by the applicant due to a fall while he was at his home and, hence, it had no causal connection between the Air Force service and the injury sustained by him. Contrary to the claim of the applicant that the second disability, ‘Primary Hypertension’, suffered by him was due to the stress and strain of Air Force service, it has no locus standi, as unlike a combatant Soldier, the applicant was a Non Combatant enrolled with limited duty hours with no trappings/liability for round the clock engagement. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the disability ‘Primary Hypertension’ could be made attributable to stress and strain of Air Force service.

7. 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”.

8. 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 prospective 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 invaliding 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”.

9. 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”.

10. 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”.

11. 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, as also in umpteen other Orders, held that the specific opinion rendered by RMB/IMB is sacrosanct and cannot be tampered with by non medical experts or even by medical experts without physically examining the individual.

12. In view of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the applicant was discharged from service on attaining the age of superannuation after rendering more than 36 years of service and the disabilities, (i) Fracture Spinous Process CV6 and (ii) Primary Hypertension, with which the applicant was discharged from service, had no causal connection with the Air Force service, as opined by the duly constituted RMB, which is sacrosanct.

13. As regards the relianceplaced on the citation 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). Nor these Judgments were superseded and/or overturned by a subsequent Judgment. Moreover, the constitution of each member of the Armed Forces is generally different and one particular disease might manifest in some individual due to service factors but the same yardstick cannot be applied to all such personnel in the Defence Services.

14. 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.

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

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

cda/-