Ex Rect Lal Chand (Army) vs UOI & Others on 11 March 2026

O R D E R

11.03.2026

1. By way of this Application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has prayed for directing the Respondents to grant Disability Pension to the Applicant @ 20% wef 13.01.1987 along with Rounding Off Benefits to 50% wef 01.01.1996 along with interest on arrears @12% per annum. The Applicant has also prayed to hold onetime RAMB of the Applicant to assess his present disablement.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant was enrolled in theArmy on 09.07.1986. Due to excessive stress and strains during BPET, he developed chest pain and it was diagnosed as “Cardiac Murmur” by MH, Bareilly. He was recommended to be invalided out from service. Consequently, after renderingsix months and three days ofservice, he was invalided out from Service on 12.01.1987on Medical Grounds due to Disability “Cardiac Murmur 785 (C)” without granting any pensionary benefits. The Applicant submits that at the time of enrolment in the Army, he was physically and medically fit in all respects and any disability suffered subsequently, ought to be assumed to have arisen in service and Attributable to or Aggravated by Military Service. Relying on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharamvir Singh Vs UOI & Ors, (2013) 7 SCC 316and Capt KJS Buttar Vs UOI & Ors, SCC 2011 XI 429, the Applicant submits that he is eligible for grant of Disability Pension. The Applicant made representation and also issued Legal Notice through his Counsel for grant of Disability Pension along with Rounding Off Benefits, but to no avail. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed present OA.

3. The Respondents 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 filed present OA after an inordinate and inexplicable delay of more than 34 years. While undergoing training, the Applicant was diagnosed as a case of “Cardiac Murmur” for which he was recommended to be invalided out of Service on medical grounds. The duly constituted Invaliding Medical Board assessed his disability @ 1-5% for two years and opined it as Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated by Military Service (NANA). Accordingly, the Applicant was invalided out of Service under Rule 13(3) IV of Army Rules, 1954. Since the disability of the Applicant was considered as NANA, he was not fulfilling the primary conditions for grant of Disability Pension in terms of Rule 173 and 198 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-1) and, hence, he was not granted any type of pension. Representations made by the Applicant were suitably replied to by the Respondents intimating him about non-entitlement for pensionary benefits. The Respondents have placed reliance on Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Secy MoD & Ors Vs Damodaran AV, (2009) 9 SCC 140and submitted that the disability of the Applicant was considered as NANA by the duly constituted Invaliding Medical Board and being a body of medical experts, the opinion of the Invaliding Medical Board should be given due value, weight and credence. 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 forboth the parties and perused thematerial placedon record.

5. Perusal of Invaliding Medical Board reveals that the Applicant’s disability was diagnosed on 11.07.1986, ie., just two days after joining for training. 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 two years and opined it as Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated by Military Service (NANA). In Para 2(d), the Invaliding Medical Board has specifically mentioned that the disability is congenital in nature and not related to Service factors.

5. 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.”

6. Relevant Para of Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Dharamvir Singh (Supra) reads as under:- “6. A conjoint reading of various provisions, reproduced above, makes it clear that:

(i) Disability pension to be granted to an individual who is invalidated from 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. The question whether a disability is attributable or aggravated by military service to be determined under “Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982" of Appendix-II (Regulation 173).

(ii) A member is to be presumed in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service if there is no note or record at the time of entrance. In the event of his subsequently being discharged from service on medical grounds any deterioration in his health is to be presumed due to service. [Rule 5 r/w Rule 14(b)].

(iii) Onus of proof is not on the claimant (employee), the corollary is that onus of proof that the condition for non-entitlement is with the employer. A claimant has a right to derive benefit of any reasonable doubt and is entitled for pensionary benefit more liberally. (Rule 9).

(iv) If a disease is accepted to have been 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. [Rule 14(c)].

(v) If no note of any disability or disease was made at the time of individual's acceptance for military service, a disease which has led to an individual's discharge or death will be deemed to have arisen in service. [14(b)].

(vi) If medical opinion holds that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior to the acceptance for service and that disease will not be deemed to have arisen during service, the Medical Board is required to state the reasons. [14(b)]; and

(vii) It is mandatory for the Medical Board to follow the guidelines laid down in Chapter-II of the "Guide to Medical (Military Pension), 2002 – "Entitlement : General Principles", including paragraph 7,8 and 9 as referred to above.

7. 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.”

8. 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.”

9. In the present case, the Applicant was detected to be suffering from Cardiac Murmur within two days of his reporting to the Training Centre. The Applicant has also placed nothing on record to establish that how he suffered from the disease due to service factors within two 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. 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, being pre-existing which escaped detection at the time of enrolment, as a detailed medical examination is not done at that time. 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.

10. We also find that the Application stands barred by inordinate delay and laches of more than 34 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 34 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.

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

12. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-