Ex Gnr Mahavir Prasad Chulet (Army) vs UOI & Others on 7 August 2026

O R D E R

07.08.2026

1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed present OA praying therein for directing the Respondents to grant Disability Element of Disability Pension @ 50% for life wef 18.05.1999 along withRounding Off benefit and that the arrears be paid along with interest @ 18% per annum.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that after rendering more than four years of service, he was invalided out of Service on 07.06.1998 on medical grounds due to disability “Pulmonary Tuberculosis”. The duly constituted Invaliding Medical Board held at the time of his invalidment from Service assessed his disability initially @ 100% for one year and considered it as attributable to military Service. The Applicant has been granted Service Pension for life. The disability of the Applicant was reviewed from time to time and, accordingly, the Applicant has been granted Disability Element of Disability Element based on the assessment by subsequent RSMBs/MA (P) at PCDA (P). The Applicant submits thatRSMB held on 06.08.1999 assessed his disability @

50% for two years but the MA(P) at PCDA (P) arbitrarily reduced it to 30% for two years for the period from 18.05.1999 to 05.08.2001. The subsequent RSMB held on 30.06.2007 assessed his disability @ 30% for life wef 30.06.2007and, accordingly, the Applicant has been granted Disability Element of Disability Pension @ 30% for life duly rounded off to 50% for life wef 30.06.2007, including the intervening period from06.08.2001 to 29.06.2007. The Applicant contended that as per the copy received through RTI Act, 2005, the Medical Board considered that his disability since last medical board had been “Static” but without any reasons, reduced his disability from 50% to 30% and assessed it @ 30% for life. The Applicant contended that if the disability was static from the last medical board held on 06.08.1999, his disability should have been assessed @ 50% for life and, thereafter, he should have been granted Rounding Off benefit to 75% for life wef 18.05.1999 instead of 50%. The Applicant made representations and also issued Legal Notice for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension @ 50% for life duly rounded off to 75% wef 18.05.1999, but to no avail.Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed present OA.

3. The Respondents have filed a detailed reply to the Application and while not disputing the basic facts presented by the Applicant, they have submitted thatthe Applicant was due for RSMB on 05.08.2001, however, despite repeated reminders/requests, he did not appear before the RSMB. Eventually, the Applicant reported to 176 MH for his RSMB on 30.06.2007, which assessed his disability @ 30% for life wef 30.06.2007 and, accordingly, the Applicant was granted Disability Element of Disability Pension @ 30% for life wef 30.06.2007 duly rounded off to 50%. Thereafter, based on the non-conviction certificate and explanation of delay, the Applicant was granted Disability Element of Disability Pension @ 30% for life duly rounded off to 50% for the intervening period from 06.08.2001 to 29.06.2007. The Respondents have reiterated that the Disability of the Applicant was re-assessed from 50% to 30% by the MA (P) at PCDA (P) for the period from 18.05.1999 to 05.08.2001, therefore, the Applicant is not eligible for rounding off benefit of Disability Element of Disability Pension to 75%. Thereafter, the Applicant has been granted Disability Element of disability Pension @ 30% for life duly rounded off to 50% wef 06.08.2001,

based on the opinion of medical board. The OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

4. We have heard Counsels for both the parties and perused the material placed before us.

5. Perusal of records reveals that the RSMB held on 06.08.1999 assessed the Applicant’s disability @ 50% for two years but the MA (P) at PCDA (P) reduced it to 30% for two years for the period from 18.05.1999 to 05.08.2001. Thereafter, the Applicant did not appear before the RSMB on due time, however, he appeared before the RSMB on 30.06.2007 which assessed his disability @ 30% for life wef 30.06.2007. Thereafter, based on the delay report and non- conviction certificate submitted by the Applicant, he was also granted disability element of disability pension for the intervening period from 06.08.2001 to 29.06.2001. The Applicant has also been granted Rounding Off benefit of Disability Element of Disability Pension from 30% to 50% for life wef 18.05.1999. Relevant page of RSMB held on 30.06.2001 placed on record by the Applicant reveals that the Medical Board has clearly recorded that the condition of the Applicant since last medical board remained to be “Static”. In the present case, the last medical board was held on 06.08.1999 wherein his disability was assessed @ 50% for two years.

6. On the question of primacy of the opinion of medical boards, Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others Vs. AV Damodaran (dead) through LRs &Ors, reported in (2009) 9 SCC 140, held as under:-

“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 medial 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.”

7. In yet another judgment, on the question of primacy of the opinion of medical boards, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ex Sapper Mohinder Singh Vs UOI (Civil Appeal No 164 of 1993) decided on 14/1/1993 observed as follows :- “From the above narrated facts and the stand taken by the parties before us, the controversy that falls for determination by us is in a very narrow compass viz, whether the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) has any jurisdiction to sit over the opinion of the experts (Medical Board) while dealing with the case of grant of disability pension, in regard to the percentage of the disability pension, or not. In the present case, it is nowhere stated that the petitioner was subjected to any higher medical board before the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) decided to decline the disability pension to the petitioner. We are unable to see as to how the accounts branch dealing with the pension can sit over judgment of the experts in the medical line and comment upon the extent of disability without making any reference to a detailed or higher medical board which can be constituted under the relevant instructions and rules by the Director General of Army Medical Corps”.

8. In the present case,the RSMB held on 06.08.1999 assessed the Applicant’s disability @ 50% for two years but the MA (P) at PCDA (P) reduced it to 30% for two years for the period from 18.05.1999 to 05.08.2001. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the MA (P) at PCDA (P) was not justified in reducing the disability of the Applicant from 50% to 30% without physically examining the Applicant. Therefore, the Applicant is eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension @ 50% duly rounded off to 75% for the period from 18.05.1999 to 05.08.2001. Thereafter,the RSMB held on 30.06.2007 clearly opined that the disability of the Applicant had been “Static” since the last medical board, however, without recording any reasons, reduced the Disability of the Applicant from 50% to 30%. Since, the Applicant’s disability

was considered to be “Static” from the last medical board held on 06.08.1999 which had assessed his disability @ 50% and respondents reduced it to 30% without recording any specific reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the Applicant’s disability was 50% for life wef 30.06.2007, including the intervening period from 06.08.2001 to 29.06.2007 and, accordingly, the Applicant is eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension @ 50% for life duly rounded off to 75% wef 06.08.2001. However, keeping in view the fact that initially the Applicant did not prefer any appeal before the Competent Authority against reduction of disability by the MA (P) at PCDA (P) in 1999 and, thereafter, he did not appear before the RSMB on 05.08.2001 to assess his disability, we are of the considered view that the Applicant be granted disability element of disability pension @ 50% duly rounded off to 75% three years prior to the date of filing the OA on 14.07.2016.

9. In-fine, the OA is partially allowed. The Respondents are directed to grant Disability Element of Disability Pension to the Applicant @ 50% duly Rounded Off to 75% wef 14.07.2013, ie., three years prior to the date of filing the OA. The arrears shall be paid to the Applicant within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order, failing which the Applicant shall be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum till the date of actual payment.

10. The OA is disposed off accordingly. Pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, also stand disposed off.

11. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-