Ex Rfn Jai Singh (Army) vs UOI & Others on 2 July 2026

O R D E R

02.07.2026

1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA praying for directing the Respondents to grant Rounding Off benefit of Disability Element of Disability Pensionto 50% for life wef 01.01.1996and that the arrears be paid along with interest @ 18% per annum.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Army on 06.01.1966 and after rendering 11 years and 99 days of service, he was invalided out of service on 14.04.1977on medical grounds due to disability “Tubercular Cervical Lymphadenitis”. The Release Medical Board held at the time of his discharge from service assessed his disability initially @ 20% for two years and, accordingly, the Applicant was granted Disability Element of Disability Pension. However, subsequently the Disability of the Applicant was assessed below 20% and his Disability Element of Disability Pension was discontinued. The Applicant submits that in terms of Para 7.2 of Govt of India, Ministry of Defence letter No 1(2)/97/D(Pen-C) dt 31.01.2001, the Applicant is eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability

Pension even if his disability was assessed below 20% and, consequently, Rounding Off Benefits wef 01.01.1996, ie., from the date of applicability of the scheme. The Applicant has also placed reliance on Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Capt KJS Buttar Vs UOI & Ors SCC 2011 XI 429 and Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of UOI & Ors Vs Ram Avtar (2014) SCC Online 1761 and submitted that he is eligible for grant of Rounding off benefit of Disability Element of Disability Pension to 50% for life wef 01.01.1996. The Applicant made representation and also issued Legal Notice for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension from the date of its discontinuation and Rounding Off Benefits of Disability Element of Disability Pension from 01.01.1996, but to no avail. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed present OA.

3. The Respondents filed a detailed reply to the Application and while not disputing the basic facts presented by the Applicant, they have submitted that initially the Invaliding Medical Board assessed his disability @ 20% for two years which was reviewed from time to time and, accordingly, the Applicant was granted Disability Element of Disability Pension till 06.10.1990. RSMB held on 07.10.1980 assessed his disability @ 20% final wef 05.01.1981, however, the MA (P) at PCDA (P) re-assessed the same @ 20% for ten years from 05.01.1981 to 06.10.1990. Thereafter, the Applicant was again brought before RSMB on 22.11.1990 which assessed his disability @ 20% for the intervening period from 07.10.1990 to 21.11.1990 and thereafter @ Nil% permanent wef 22.11.1990. However, the MA (P) at PCDA (P) again re-assessed his disability @ Nil % for life, including the intervening period wef 07.10.1990 and discontinued Disability Element of Disability Pension wef 07.10.1990. The Respondents have submitted that the disability of the Applicant was assessed below 20% wef 07.10.1990 and, hence, the Applicant is not entitled for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension and, consequently, he is also not entitled for grant of Rounding Off benefits wef 01.01.1996. In view of the aforesaid averments, the Respondents have reiterated that the OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

4. During the course of arguments, Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that as regards grant of Rounding Off benefits, the Respondents may be directed to decide his case in the light of the principles settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment dt 12.02.2026 in Civil Appeal No 6820-6824/2018 in the case of UOI & Ors Vs Sgt Girish Kumar & Ors, to which Learned Counsel for the Respondents raised no objection.

5. We have heard Learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed before us. Now the question arises, as to whether MA (P) at PCDA (P) can overrule the opinion of Medical boards.

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 ofEx 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 Applicant was discharged from Service on medical grounds before fulfilling the terms of engagement in the rank of Rifleman. Based on the Invaliding Medical Board and subsequent RSMBs, the Applicant was granted Disability Element of Disability Pension till 06.10.1990. In the RSMB held on 07.10.1980, the Applicant’s disability was assessed @ 20% final, however, the MA (P) at PCDA (P) re-assessed it @ 20% for 10 years from 05.01.1980 to 06.10.1990. In the subsequent RSMB held on 22.11.1990, the Applicant’s disability was assessed @ 20% for the intervening period from 07.10.1990 to 21.11.1990 and thereafter @ Nil% for life wef 22.11.1990. However, the MA (P) at PCDA (P), without physically examining the Applicant altered the assessment and re-assessed it @ Nil% for life, including the intervening period wef 07.10.1990. Since, the disability of the Applicant was assessed @ 20% for the period from 07.10.1990 to 21.11.1990 and Nil % for life wef 22.10.1990 with a notation that the applicant has been cured by the subsequent RSMB held on 22.11.1990, the Applicant is not entitled to disability element of disability pension for the period beyond 22.11.1990.Therefore, the Applicant is entitled for Disability Element of Pension for the period from 07.10.1990 to 21.11.1990 only as it was opined by a duly constituted RMB. Further, it is not desirable that Disability Element is granted in respect of a disability which has fully cured and is assessed @ Nil % by the medical experts.

9. Since the Rounding Off benefit was to be implemented wef 01.01.1996 and the applicant was not drawing Disability Element on that date, he is not entitled to Rounding Off of the Disability Element. The OA is, hence, dismissed as he is not in receipt of Disability Element wef 01.01.1996.

10. The OA is ordered, 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/-