Ex Hav Ridmal Singh (Army) vs UOI & Others on 22 July 2026

O R D E R

22.07.2026

1. By way of this Application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has prayed for directing the Respondents for grant of Disability Pension @ 30% along with Rounding Off Benefits of Disability Element of Disability Pension to 50% wef 18.07.1998 for life and that the arrears be paid with interest @12% per annum.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Army on 26.02.1981. Due to stress and strain of military service, he suffered from Disease “Schizophrenia”. The Applicant was placed in low medical category and, consequently, after rendering 17 years and 5 months of service, he was invalided out from Service on 17.07.1998. The Applicant has been granted Service Pension for life, however, Disability Element

of Disability Pension has not been granted on the grounds that his disability was considered as Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated by Military Service (NANA). The Applicant submits that he was physically and medically fit in all respects at the time of joining the Army and he suffered from the disability due to stress and strain of military Service. Therefore, he is entitled to grant of Disability Pension in terms of Rule 423 (c) of Regulations for Medical Services for Armed Forces, 1983, Rule 14 (b) of Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 and Rule 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-1). In support of his claim, the Applicant has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharamvir Singh Vs UOI & Ors, (2013) 7 SCC 316 and UOI & Anr Vs Rajbir Singh, JT 2015(2) SC 392 and submitted that he is eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension @ 30%duly rounded off to 50% from the date of his discharge from Service. The Applicant preferred 1st and 2nd Appeals before the Competent Authorities against rejection of Disability Pension claim, but the same were rejected. 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 that the duly constituted Invaliding Medical Board assessed his disability @ 30% for two years and considered it as NANA. Therefore, the Applicant is not entitled to grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension in terms of Para 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-1). Moreover, after carefully examining the Appeals preferred by the Applicant, the Competent Authorities have rejected the same. 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 AFT (RB), Lucknow, Circuit Bench at Nainital Order dt 10.10.2025 in OA No 569/2025 in the case of Ex Spr Shankar Datt Kalony Vs UOI & Ors and Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment dt 07.05.2025 in Civil Appeal No 998/2025 in the case of Rajumon TM Vs UOI & Ors and prayed that the Respondents may be

directed to decide his case in the light of aforesaid judgments in the case of Ex Spr Shankar Datt Kalony (Supra) and Rajumon TM (Supra).

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

6. Perusal of records reveals that at the time of invalidment, the Applicant’s disability was assessed @ 30% for two years and was considered as NANA. The Applicant has been granted Service Pension for life. However, disability element of disability pension was not granted to the Applicant in terms of Rule 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-1) as his disability was considered as NANA. The twin conditions for grant of Disability Pension are that the disability should be assessed above 20% and considered as Attributable to or Aggravated by Military Service. In this case, the Applicant’s disability was considered as NANA, therefore, he was not granted disability element of disability pension. Further RSMB of the Applicant was not held after two years, as he had not been granted Disability Element of Pension, the disability being NANA. 1st Appeal preferred by the Applicant was rejected by the Competent Authority on the grounds of the disability having been considered as NANA by the Invaliding Medical Board. However, the 2nd Appeal dt 21.12.2018 was not considered on the grounds of delay.

7. It is absolutely clear that since the disability was classified as NANA, Disability Element was not granted in favour of the Applicant. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Ors Vs. AV Damodaran (dead) through LRs and Ors (2009) 9 SCC 140 held that the opinion of the Medical Board, which is a body of medical experts has to be respected. Moreover, in Civil Appeal No.7672 of 2019 (Diary No.27850 of 2017) in the case of Ex Cfn Narsingh Yadav Vs UOI & Ors has also held that the psychiatric disorders are outside the purview of grant of Disability Element of Pension. Further, this Tribunal in the cases of Ex Nk Achal Das Vs UOI & Ors in OA No 94/2022 decided on 22.03.2024, Ex Sep Gajendra Singh Vs UOI & Ors in OA No 458/2022 decided on 22.03.2024 and Deendayal Bagaria Vs UOI & Ors in

OA No 441/2016 decided on 02.08.2024 has held that if a person suffers from a psychiatric disorder and the disability is categorized as NANA, the Applicant’s therein are not entitled to grant of Disability Element. Thus, the Applicant herein cannot be granted Disability Element by disregarding the opinion of Release Medical Board.

8. However, taking into consideration the prayer of the Counsel of the Applicant to direct the Respondents to re-consider the case in terms of above mentioned judgments, we direct that in case the Applicant makes a fresh Appeal before the Competent Authority, interalia the objections raised in the OA, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order, the Respondents shall consider and decide the case within a period of four months thereafter, in the light of relevant rules/ regulations/ policies and the judgments cited above. The outcome thereof shall be intimated to the Applicant.

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

10. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-