Ex Hav Chhagan Singh Rajput (Army) vs UOI & Others on 21 January 2026

O R D E R

21.01.2026

MA No 150/2018

1. The Applicant has filed this MA praying for condonation of delay of“2 years and three months” involved in filing the OA, which will be considered alongwith the OA.

OA No 146/2018

2. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the applicant has filed this OA praying for directing the Respondents to set aside the Invaliding Medical Board proceedings as far as attributability/aggravation of disability of the applicant mentioned in the IMB and hold the disability as aggravated by service and further direct the Respondents to grant disability pension to the applicant wef 07/11/1994

onwards for life. He has further prayed for grant of benefit of rounding off of the disability element to 50% from the existing 30% wef 01/1/1996 as also bringing the applicant before a fresh RSMB, if so desired. Any other relief which the Hon’ble Tribunal deem it appropriate in the circumstances of the matter may also please be granted in favour of the applicant.

3. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the Army (Corps of Signals) on 09/9/1982 as SKT and on completion of his basic training, he was posted to various Signal Regiments. While the applicant was posted to Indo-Tibet Border, Himachal Scouts in the year 1986-1988, he developed symptoms of Neurosis, but continued with local treatment in Unit MI Room and at Field Hospital. When the disability got aggravated during the year 1993-1994, he was hospitalized at MH, Ahmedabad from where he was transferred to Command Hospital, Pune. After his treatment there, he was brought before Invaliding Medical Board and was invalided out the applicant from service in medical category EEE (Permanent) and sent him home on 07/11/1994 after an exemplary service of 12 years, one month and 28 days, thereby drastically cutting short entitled service of 24 years. His disability was assessed @30%, but no disability pension was granted to the applicant. On invalidation, the applicant was granted Invalid Pension, ie, minimum pension granted to a Sepoy on completion of 10 years and discharged in low medical category. Although the applicant was holding the rank of a Havildar, but granted only minimum invaliding pension of Rs 1230/- pm wef 07/11/1994, Annexure A/3. Appeal of the applicant for grant of disability pension was rejected by the Govt of India, Ministry of Defence on the ground that his disability is a constitutional disorder unrelated to military service which was considered as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service and, hence, not eligible for grant of disability pension. In support of his arguments, the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI &Ors Vs Rajbir Singh, in Civil Appeal No 2904 of 2011, decided on 13/2/2015, in the case of Dharamvir Singh Vs UOI as also UOI Vs Angad Singh Titaria, Civil Appeal No 11208 of 2011, decided on 24/2/2015. Having been aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA, praying for relief.

4. The Respondents have filed a Reply Statement. While not negating the basic facts, they have submitted that the Applicant was invalided out from service on 07/11/1994 under Rule 13 (3) Item III (iii) by the duly constituted medical board in low medical category ‘EEE’ (Psychological) for the disability, “Neurosis”. He had rendered 12 years and 59 days of service, for which he was granted Service Element for life. Since the applicant was in low medical category for the disability, “Neurosis”, the duly constituted Invaliding Medical Board held on 14/9/1994 at the MH, Ahmedabad, wherein he was medically as well as physically examined and his disability was opined as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service and not connected with service as the disability arose in January 1994 while the applicant was posted in a Peace Area and not connected with service. The medical board assessed the disability of the applicant @30% for two years. The Appellate Committee on First Appeal (ACFA) has also rejected the appeal of the applicant vide letter dated 15/5/1997. Since the disability element of disability pension was not granted to the applicant, the question of granting rounding off benefit of disability element does not arise. Respondents have further stated that the OA has been filed after a delay of almost 24 years from the date of his invalidment from service and needs to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Hans Ram Vs UOI, 1995 (34) DRJ (DB), CM No 2063/93 and CW No 1267 of 1993.

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

6. From the foregoing and perusal of material placed on record, it is evident that the applicant was Invalided out from Service on invalided out from service on 07/11/1994 under Rule 13 (3) Item III (iii) by the duly constituted medical board in low medical category ‘EEE’ (Psychological) for the disability, “Neurosis”. He had rendered 12 years and 59 days of service and was granted Service Element for life. The IMB assessed the disability of the applicant “Neurosis”,@ 30% for two years and disability was opined as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service as also not connected with military service. As the disability of the applicant was considered as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, the Disability

Pension claim of the Applicant was rejected on the ground of not fulfilling the conditions stipulated for grant of the same.

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. Hence, as the disability of the applicant has been categorized as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, ‘NANA”, by the expert medical board, this opinion is sacrosanct.

8. Further, on a careful scrutiny 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 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the decision of AFT, Regional Bench, Lucknow in OA No.235 of 2010 dated 23.09.2011 denying Disability Pension to a soldier medically boarded out with Schizophrenia having less than four years service. The Supreme 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-deduction of mental disorder, therefore, it cannot be said that Schizophrenia is presumed to be attributed to or aggravated to military service. “

9. The Supreme Court Judgment (supra) amplifies that mental disorders lie outside the realm of being medically detected during the enrolment process and 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”.

10. In yet another judgment by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI & Ors Vs Ex Sep R Munusamy, Civil Appeal No 6536 of 2021, decided on 19/7/2022, held the view that :- “ …..the Tribunal patently erred in law in proceeding on the basis of a misconceived notion that any ailment or disability of a soldier, not noted at the time of recruitment but detected or diagnosed at the time of his discharge or earlier, would entitle the soldier to disability pension on the presumption that the disability was attributable to military service, whether or not the disability led to his discharge, and the onus was on the employer to prove otherwise, which the Appellants in this case had failed to do”.

11. 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”.

12. 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”.

13. Keeping in mind the Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court (Supra) and the clear parameters enunciated for determining attributability of Disability, we find no Causal Link between the disability of the Applicant and the Army Service as opined by the RMB. In this regard judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI &Ors Vs Jujhar Singh, Civil Appeal No 4281 of 2006, decided on 15/7/2011 as also 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, decided on 20/8/2009 wherein it was held that the Medical Board is a Specialised Authority composed of expert medical doctors and it is the final authority to give information with regard to grant of disability element or otherwise hold good. No facts have been brought to the fore by the Applicant which suggests even a remote causal link of the Disability suffered by him to conditions of Military service and, hence, we must respect the opinion of the RMB categorizing the disability of the applicant as ‘NANA’.

14. In view of the aforesaid and based on the judgments cited above, it is amply clear that the Applicant’s Disease, “Neurosis”, clearly falls outside the purview of attributability/ aggravation to military service, thus, making the Applicant ineligible for Disability Pension.

15. Apart from the above, we also feel that the Application stands barred by inordinate delay and latches of more than 24 years, as against the statement of the applicant that the delay was only about two years, with no cogent reason for the inexplicable delay of more than three decades and it does not deserve to be entertained. 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 case is also covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs Rajwanti, Civil Appeal No 583-584 of 2017, decided on 16/1/2017.

16. 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 accordingly dismissed.

17. No order on Costs.

18. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

cda/-