Ex Sigmn Lalit Kumar (Army) vs UOI & Others on 6 February 2026

O R D E R

06.02.2026

1. By way of this Application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has prayed for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension to the Applicant wef 28.02.1975 along with Rounding Off Benefits to 50% wef 01.01.1996 and consequential benefits 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 the Applicant was enrolled in the Army on 30.12.1968 and after rendering 4 years and 135 days of service, he was invalided out of Service on 13.05.1973 on medical grounds due to disability “Neurosis”. The duly constituted Invaliding Medical Board held at the time of invalidation assessed his Disability initially @20% for two years and considered it as Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated by Military Service (NANA). However, the MA (P) at PCDA (P) considered the disability as Aggravated by Military Service and granted

Disability Pension to the Applicant for two years from 14.05.1973 to 27.02.1975. The subsequent Resurvey Medical Board held in 1975 assessed his Disability @ 6-10% permanent and, accordingly, Disability Element of Disability Pension of the Applicant was discontinued wef 28.02.1975. Relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukhvinder Singh Vs UOI & Ors, (2014) STPL 468 SC, the Applicant submits that he was invalided out from Service on medical grounds and, hence, he is eligible for Disability Element of Disability Pension, even if his disability was assessed below 20% subsequently. The Applicant further submits that after assessment of disability below 20%, the Respondents made no efforts to reinstate him in service in low medical category. The Applicant made various representations as also issued Legal Notice, but to no avail. Therefore, the Aggrieved Applicant has filed present OA.

3. The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement and while not contesting the basic facts presented by the Applicant, they have raised objection on the ground that the OA has been filed after a long delay of more than 43 years, therefore, the OA has to be dismissed on this ground alone. They have further submitted that Re-Survey Medical Board held on 28.02.1975 assessed his disability @ 6-10% permanent, hence, his Disability Element only of Disability Pension was discontinued wef 28.02.1975. However, Service Element of Disability Pension was continued in terms of Rule 186 (2) of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-1) for life. The Applicant was communicated about rejection of Disability Pension claim with an advice to prefer an Appeal, in case he was not satisfied with rejection of the claim, but the Applicant did not file any Appeal. 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 placed reliance on Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment dt 07.05.2025 in CA No 998/2025 in the case of Rajumon T.M. Vs UOI & Ors, Hon’ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur judgment dt 06.11.2025 in DB CWP

No 1209/2024 in the case of Ex Hav Jiwan Ram Choudhary Vs UOI & Ors, Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh judgment dt 23.02.2015 in CWP No 16086/2014 in the case of Jaswant Singh Vs UOI & Ors and Hon’ble AFT (PB), New Delhi Order dt 04.02.2015 in the case of Ex Hony Nb Sub DS Saini Vs UOI & Ors and submitted that he is eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension from the date of his discharge from Service along with Rounding Off Benefits wef 01.01.1996.

5. After going through the averments of the Learned Counsels and the material available on record, the following facts emerge :- (a) The Applicant was invalided out of service on medical grounds on 13.05.1973 in the rank of Signalman after rendering more than 4 years of service.

(b) The Invaliding Medical Board of the Applicant assessed his disability initially at 20% for two years and considered it as Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated by Military Service (NANA). However, the MA (P) at PCDA (P) considered the same as Aggravated by Military Service and granted him Disability Pension for two years from 14.05.1973 to 27.02.1975.

(c) RSMB held on 28.02.1975 assessed the Disability below 20% (6- 10%) permanent and discontinued Disability Element of Disability Pension wef 28.02.1975. However, he is in receipt of Service Element of Disability Pension for life.

(d) The OA has been filed on 31.01.2019 after an inexplicable and inordinate delay of more than 43 years.

6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record.

7. The entitlement for grant of Disability Pension is mentioned in Rule 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-1), which reads as under:- "173. Unless otherwise specifically provided a disability pension consisting of service element and disability element may be granted to an individual who is invalided out of service on account of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service in non-battle casualty and is assessed at 20% or over.

173-A. Individuals who are placed in a lower medical category (other than 'E') permanently and who are discharged because no alternative employment in their own trade/category suitable to their low medical category could be provided or who are unwilling to accept the alternative employment or who having retained in alternative employment are discharged before completion of their engagement, shall be deemed to have been invalided from service for the purpose of the entitlement rules laid down in Appendix II to these Regulations.

Note: The above provision shall also apply to individuals who are placed in a low medical category while on extended service and discharged on the account before the completion of the period of their extension.

The question whether a disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service shall be determined under the rule in Appendix II."

8. The provisions for grant of pensionary awards when the degree of disablement is reassessed at less than 20% are mentioned in Rule 186 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-1), which read as under:- “186. (1) An individual who is invalided out of service with a disability attributable to or aggravated by service but assessed below at below 20 per cent shall be entitled to service element only.

An individual who was initially granted disability pension but whose disability is re-assessed at below 20% subsequently shall cease to draw disability element of disability pension from the date it falls below 20 per cent. He shall however continue to draw the service element of disability pension.”

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others Vs. AV Damodaran (dead) through LRs and Others, reported in (2009) 9 SCC 140, clearly brings out the following principles with regard to primacy of opinion of medical board:- “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.”

10. As regards rejection of Disability Pension claim by the PCDA (P) overruling the opinion of the Medical Authorities, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given a final and definitive judgment on the question in Ex Sapper Mohinder Singh Vs UOI (Civil Appeal No 164 of 1993) decided on 14/1/1993 wherein it has 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”.

11. Hence, in view of the above judgments, the MA (P) at PCDA (P) had no authority to tweak the opinion of the Release Medical Board. However, without going into the merits of the same, since it was to the advantage of the Invalided out Soldier, we are letting the matter rest as it is since if MA (P) had not changed the opinion of the Release Medical Board from NANA to Aggravation of Disability due to military service, the Applicant would not have been granted even Service Element of Disability Pension which has been granted to the Applicant for life and he would have been paid only Invalid Gratuity at the time of his discharge on medical grounds.

12. After having been granted Disability Pension to the Applicant for a period of two years, consequent RSMB held on 28.02.1975 assessed his Disability below 20% (6-10%) for life. Hence, the Applicant is not eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension wef 28.02.1975 in terms of Rule 186 (2) of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-1). The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the Applicant in the case of Sukhvinder Singh and Rajumon T.M. (Supra) are not relevant and not applicable to the facts of this case as in those cases the Applicants were invalided out of service without granting any pensionary benefits, whereas in the present case, the Applicant was initially granted Disability Pension and after assessment of his disability below 20%, only Disability Element of Disability Pension was discontinued and he was continued to be getting Service Element of Disability Pension for life wef 28.02.1975 in terms of Rule 186 (2) of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-1). In the case of Jaswant Singh (Supra), the Applicant was invalided out of service on account of two disabilities and in the subsequent medical boards, both the disabilities were not assessed by the Medical Board. Other cases cited by the Counsel for the Applicant are distinguishable.

13. Moreover, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ex Gdr Sher Singh Vs UOI & Ors in CWP No 5726/2023 decided on 04.12.2025 that neurological disorders are outside the purview of disability caused due to or aggravated by military service, wherein it was held as “the Respondents were right in declining to grant of disability allowance to the Appellant herein owing to the fact that it fell outside the purview of Attributability/Aggravation due to military service. Therefore, the Appellant was not entitled to the disability pension”. Further, in the RSMB held on 28.02.1975, the opinion of the Medical Specialist reads as “An old case of Neurosis. He has got defective, vision both eyes and occasional fainting, clinically NAD. He is re-employed and now doing all work. At present there is no abnormality”. Condition of his disability was also opined as “Improved” and the same was assessed @ 6-10% final. Accordingly, in term of Rule 186 (2) of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-1), the disability element only has been discontinued and we see no reason to interfere with the decision.

14. Moreover, the OA has been filed after an inordinate and inexplicable delay of more than 43 years. Therefore, this case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Jacob Vs. Director of Geology and Mining & Anr., (2008) 10 SCC 115, which held that a stale claim cannot be permitted to be reviewed. Persons who slept over his right is not entitled for any indulgence. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, in the case of Inderpal Singh Vs UOI & Ors in Civil Writ Petition 8524/2000 decided on 04.08.2004, held that the petitioner who himself was not interested in pursuing the matter and kept silent for 11 years, hence, delay cannot be condoned.

15. Accordingly, the OA filed by the Applicant is devoid of merit and is dismissed. Pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.

16. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-