Ex Sep Vishram Singh Gurjar (Army) vs UOI & Others on 3 September 2026

O R D E R

03.09.2026

1. The Applicant has filed this Application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, praying for directing the Respondents to grant Disability Pension to the Applicant from the date of his discharge from Service along with all consequential benefits.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Army on 04.01.2000 and was discharged from Service wef 14.04.2000 under Army Rule 13(3) IV due to disability “Defective Colour Vision” without granting any pensionary benefits. The Invaliding Medical Board held at the time of

invalidment of the Applicant assessed his disability @ 1-5% for life and considered it as Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated by Military Service (NANA), being congenital disorder. The Applicant submits that at the time of enrolment he was physically and medically fit in all respects and no note of any disability was made at the time of his acceptance in service, therefore, the disability suffered by the Applicant during training should be considered as Attributable to or Aggravated by Military Service in terms of Rule 7(b) of Appendix II of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-1). The Applicant has contended that a person cannot be discharged from service without issuing him Show Cause Notice, however, the Applicant was discharged from Service without issuing any Show Cause Notice for forfeiture of his pensionary benefits which is a violation of principles of natural justice. In support of his claim for grant of Disability Pension, the Applicant has placed reliance on Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Dharamvir Singh Vs UOI & Ors (2013) 7 SCC 316. The Applicant made representations and also issued Legal Notice for grant of Disability Pension but to no avail. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed present OA.

3. The Respondents have filed a detailed reply to the Application. While not disputing the Basic facts submitted by the Applicant, the Respondents have submitted that the Applicant has mentioned his rank in the OA as Sepoy whereas he was a Recruit only. Under the provisions of IHQ of MoD (Army) letter No 76063/DGMS/5A dt 06.07.1999, the Applicant was subjected to a Second Medical Examination at MH, Fatehgarh where it was detected as a case of “Defective Colour Perception”. He was further referred to Command Hospital, Lucknow for further investigations by the Specialists. Medical Advisor (Ophthalmology), Command Hospital, Lucknow after due investigations found the Applicant “Unfit” for military service and recommended him to be invalided out of service vide AFMSF-7A dt 16.02.2000. As per Para 5 (Medical Test at Entry Stage) of Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to the Armed Forces Personnel, 2008, the medical test at the time of entry is not exhaustive but its scope is limited to broad physical examination. Therefore, sometimes it

may not detect some dormant disease(s). Besides, certain hereditary constitutional and congenital diseases may manifest later in life, irrespective of the service conditions. The mere fact that a disease has manifested during military service does not per se establish attributability to or aggravation by military service. The duly constituted Invaliding Medical Board assessed his disability @ 1-5% for life and opined it as Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated by Military Service (NANA), being a congenital disorder. The Invaliding Medical Board has clearly opined that the disability is congenital, which means he was suffering from the disability since birth. Since, the disability of the Applicant was assessed below 20% and opined as NANA, the Applicant is clearly not eligible for grant of Disability Pension in terms of Para 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-1). His disability pension claim was rejected by PCDA (P) being NANA. He was communicated about the rejection of disability pension claim with an advice to prefer any Appeal, if he was not satisfied with rejection of his claim, but he did not file any Appeal and instead filed this OA. In view of the aforesaid averments, the Respondents have reiterated that 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 on record.

5. Perusal of Invaliding Medical Board reveals that the Applicant’s disability was diagnosed on 02.02.2000, ie., just 28 days after his joining the training as a Recruit. Based on the medical reports and physical examination of the Applicant, he was recommended to be Invalided out from Service, as he was not likely to become an efficient soldier. The Invaliding Medical Board assessed his Disease @ 1-5% for life and opined it as Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated by Military Service (NANA). In Part-III, Para 2(d), the Invaliding Medical Board has specifically mentioned that the disability is a congenital disorder and not related to Service factors.

6. Para 14 of Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 reads as under:-

“(a) Cases in which it is established that conditions of Military Service did not determine or contribute to the onset of the disease but influenced the subsequent courses of the disease, will fall for acceptance on the basis of aggravation.

(b) A disease which has led to an individual’s discharge or death will ordinarily 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. However, 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.

(c) If the 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.”

7. On the issue of Medical Examination of the Recruits, relevant portion of Para 135 of Regulations for the Army, 1987 (Revised Edition) reads as under:-

“135. Medical Examination of Recruits. –

(a) to (c). xxxxxx

(d) The medical re-examination immediately on arrival at his unit of a recruit enrolled by a RO and passed fit by a Recruiting Medical Officer is not permissible. Only in exceptional cases, where the medical officer in charge of the case considers it unlikely that a recruit will make an efficient soldier, will be medically boarded out before undergoing training.

(e) When a recruit breaks down while undergoing training or is found to be suffering from a disability likely to prevent him becoming an efficient soldier he will be medically boarded, and, if found unfit discharged under Army Rule 13(3) Item IV.”

8. As regards discharge of a Recruit from Service, Rule 13(3) IV of Army Rules, 1954, reads as under:-

Category Grounds of Discharge Competent Authority to authorize discharge Manner of discharge Persons enrolled under the Act but no attested

IV. All classes of discharge Commanding Officer or officer commanding Recruit Reception Camp, or a Recruiting, Technical Recruiting or Deputy Technical Recruiting Officer In the case of persons requesting to be discharged before fulfilling the conditions of their enrolment, the commanding officers will exercise this power only where he is satisfied as to the desirability of sanctioning the application and the strength of the unit will not thereby be unduly reduced.

Recruits who are considered unlikely to become efficient soldiers will be dealt with under this item.

9. On the issue of Show Cause Notice to a Recruit, before being discharged from Service, relevant extracts of Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment dt 28.10.2015 in Civil Appeal No 5015/2008 in the case of UOI & Ors Vs Manoj Deswal & Ors, read as under:- “17. We have perused the judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants and we are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by this Court to the effect that no special notice is required to be given before discharge of a person who is not attested, especially in view of the fact that a court of enquiry had already been held on 29th July, 2005 and Respondent No.1 had been declared deserter by an order dated 30th July, 2005.

18. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent no.1 relied upon certain judgments and made an effort to submit that the Lt. General and the Director General of Supplies and Transport was the only officer who was competent to discharge Respondent No.1. We are not in agreement with the said submissions in view of the fact that Table IV of Rule 13(3) clearly prescribes that the Commanding Officer, under whom the non-attested person is working, can discharge him from service. It is an admitted fact that the impugned order of discharge had been passed by the Commanding Officer concerned, under whom Respondent no.1 was working and the said Commanding Officer had satisfied himself about the fact that Respondent no.1 was not likely to become an efficient soldier.”

10. After considering the judgment in the case of UOI & Anr Vs Rajbir Singh, JT 2015(2) SC 392, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI & Ors Vs Ex Sep R Munusamyin Civil Appeal No 6536/2021 decided on 19.07.2022, held that 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, the relevant paragraphs of which reads as under:- “23. 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.

24. Even though, the Tribunal accepted that there might be cases, where an ailment/disease could be wholly unrelated to military service and the denial of disability pension could be justified on that ground, the Tribunal overlooked the mandate of Rule 14(c) of the Entitlement Rules. From the Report of the Resurvey Medical Board, as extracted in the impugned judgment and order, it does not appear that the Review Medical Board gave any opinion as contemplated in Rule 14(b) or 14(c) of the Entitlement Rules. There were no materials before the Tribunal, on the basis of which the Tribunal could have been satisfied that, the conditions of service of the Respondent contributed to his disability and/or ailment. The Review Medical Board only assessed the extent of the disability of the Respondent and the approximate duration of the disability, but not the cause thereof.

25. What exactly is the reason for a disability or ailment may not be possible for anyone to establish. Many ailments may not be detectable at the time of medical check-up, particularly where symptoms occur at intervals. Reliance would necessarily have to be placed on expert medical opinion based on an in depth study of the cause and nature of an ailment/disability including the symptoms thereof, the conditions of service to which the soldier was exposed and the connection between the cause/aggravation of the ailment/disability and the conditions and/or requirements of service. 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. With regard to the primacy of the medical opinion, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of AV Damodaran (dead) (Supra),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.”

12. In the present case, the Applicant was detected to be suffering from “Defective Colour Perception” within 28 days of his reporting to the Training Centre. The Applicant has also placed nothing on record to establish that he suffered from the disability due to service factors within 28 days of reporting to Training Centre. Therefore, in terms of Para 14 (b) of Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982, the Applicant’s Disability is clearly not attributable to military service. Moreover, based on the medical reports and after physical examination of the Applicant, the duly constituted Invaliding Medical Board considered the disability as NANA, being a congenital disorder. Therefore, in the light of Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of AV Damodaran (Supra), the opinion of the medical board deserves due weight, value and credence. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Disability of the Applicant is clearly NANA and that it was pre-existing which escaped detection at the time of enrolment, as a detailed medical examination is not done at that stage. Moreover, the primary medical examination at the time of recruitment is basically a screening medical examination to screen out persons with the specified diseases/ disabilities and select a physically fit person who should also be able to sustain the physical stress and strain of training and able to make a good and fit soldier. At the time of enrolment, an individual is expected to reveal his past illness, injuries and also intimate family history of specified diseases. Based on the inputs given by the individual as also the recruiting standards, the Recruiting Medical Officer examines the persons assembled for enrolment. Only general examination is carried out and detailed medical tests and psychiatric examination is neither feasible nor carried out. At the time of enrolment, the persons are in the age group of 17-

20 years and various diseases manifest later in adult/middle age and certain diseases have periodic remissions/ relapses or remain in sub-clinical stage, and therefore, these cannot be detected at the time of enrolment. As regards the issuance of Show Cause Notice, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manoj Deswal (Supra) has clearly held that no special notice is required to be given before discharge of a person who is not attested and under Rule 13(3) IV of Army Rules, 1954 and the Commanding Officer is empowered to discharge a Recruit from service, who is considered unlikely to become an efficient soldier. In the present case, the Applicant was detected to have been suffering from a disability which was a congenital disorder, due to which the Applicant was unlikely to become an efficient soldier. The case cited by the Applicant, viz., Dharamvir Singh Vs UOI & Ors is clearly distinct and not relevant as it has been clearly stated by the Invaliding Medical Board that the disability is a congenital disorder and could not have been caused within a period of 28 days of training of the Recruit Applicant. Therefore, we are of the considered view that since the disability of the Applicant was considered as NANA, being a congenital disorder and the Applicant was unlikely to become an efficient soldier and, hence, was invalided out, the Applicant is clearly not eligible for grant of Disability Pension.

13. We also find that the Application stands barred by inordinate delay and laches of more than 18 years with no cogent reason for the inexplicable delay and it does not deserve to be entertained. For this reason, the Application seeking Disability Pension by the Applicant after 18 years of his discharge is totally misconceived and is barred by the doctrine of laches and inordinate delay. In view of the above and 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 was held that a stale claim cannot be revived for grant of Pensionary benefits, the Applicant is not entitled for any pensionary benefits. The case is also squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs Rajwanti, in Civil Appeal No 583-584 of 2017, decided on 16/1/2017.

14. The OA is devoid of merit on all counts and, hence, is Dismissed. Pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, also stand disposed off.

15. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-