Ex Nk (TS) Mahipal Singh (Army) vs UOI & Others on 10 July 2026

**ORDER**

**10.07.2026**

**MA No 242/2021**

1. 1. MA No 242/2021 has been filed by the Applicant for condonation of delay in filing the OA. The prayer for condonation of delay in filing the OA will be considered along with the main OA.

**OA No 360/2021**

1. 2. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA praying therein for directing the Respondents to grant Disability Element of Disability Pension for life wef 01.09.1998 along with Rounding Off benefits and that the arrears be paid along with interest @ 18% per annum.

1. 3. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Army on 08.08.1981 and after rendering 17 years and 24 days of service, he was discharged from service on 31.08.1998 in low medical category due to disability "B/L Calcaneal Spur V-67". The duly constituted Release Medical Board (RMB) held at the time of his discharge from Service, assessed his Disability @ 20% for two years and considered it as Attributable to Military Service. However, the MA (P) at PCDA (P) re-assessed his disability @ 11-14% for five years without physically examining him and, consequently, the Applicant was not granted Disability Element of Disability Pension. The MA (P) at PCDA (P) has no jurisdiction to overrule the opinion of expert medical body without physically examining the Applicant. Next RSMB held on 12.03.2003 to assess the disability of the Applicant assessed his disability @ 11-14% for life wef 22.06.2003, in the shadow of the opinion of MA (P) at PCDA (P) on the RMB. The Applicant has submitted that in Para 6(a) of RSMB, it is clearly mentioned that condition of the Disability since the last medical board (ie. RMB) is Static, however, contrary to the assessment of disability by RMB @ 20%, his disability was assessed @ 11-14% and he has contested that if the disability of the Applicant was Static from the last medical board, how the net assessment of the Disability can be reduced from 20% to 11-14%. In view of the above, Counsel for the Applicant submits that since his disability was Static from last medical board, the disability assessed @ 11-14% for life should be considered as 20% for life wef 22.06.2003 and, consequently, the Applicant be granted Disability Element of Disability Pension from the date of his discharge from Service. The Applicant made representation and also issued Legal Notice for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension duly Rounded Off wef 01.09.1998, but to no avail. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed present OA.

4. The Respondents filed a detailed reply to the Application and while not disputing the basic facts presented by the Applicant, they have submitted that the Applicant was discharged from Service on completion of terms of engagement in the rank of Naik and his disability was assessed @ 20% for two years and was considered as Aggravated by Military Service by the RMB, however, the MA (P) at PCDA (P), by exercising his powers conferred upon him vide Rule 17 and 27 (c) of Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary awards, 1982 and GoI, MoD letter dt 21.06.1996, re-assessed his disability @ 11-14% for five years. Therefore, the Applicant was not granted Disability Element of Disability Pension. The Applicant was communicated to prefer an Appeal before the Competent Authority, if he was not satisfied with rejection of Disability Pension claim but he did not file any appeal. Since subsequent RSMB held on 12.03.2003 assessed his disability @ 11-14% for life wef 22.06.2003, his disability pension claim was rejected by PCDA (P). The Applicant was again communicated about rejection of disability pension claim with an advice to prefer an Appeal before the Competent Authority in case he was not satisfied with rejection of the same, but he did not file any Appeal. Since the disability of the Applicant was assessed below 20%, the Applicant is not entitled for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension in terms of Rule 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-1). In view of the aforesaid averments, the Respondents have reiterated that the OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

5. During the course of arguments, Learned Counsel for the Applicant placed reliance on this Tribunal Order dt 15.12.2025 in OA No 22/2022 in the case of Ex Nk Shiva Narayan Bishnoi Vs UOI & Ors and submitted that the Applicant is eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension duly rounded off to 50% from the date of his discharge from Service.

6. We have heard Learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed before us.

7. 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 medal 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 invalidating 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."

8. In yet another judgment, on the question of primacy of the opinion of medical boards, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of **Ex 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".*

9. In the present case, the Applicant was discharged from Service on 31.08.1998 on completion of terms of engagement in the rank of Naik. Though, his disability was initially assessed @ 20% for two years by the duly constituted RMB, but the MA (P) at PCDA (P) arbitrarily re-assessed it to 11-14% for five years without physically examining the Applicant and rejected the claim for grant of Disability Pension. Therefore, we are of the view that in the light of principles laid down by various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court as mentioned above, the MA (P) at PCDA (P) was not justified in re-assessing the Disability of the Applicant from 20% to 11-14%. As per Para 6 (a) of the subsequent RSMB held on 12.03.2003 the condition of the Applicant was found to be "Static" from the date of holding of last medical board (in this case the RMB), however, the percentage of the disability was reduced to 11-14% for life from 20% assessed in last RMB, without assigning any reasons for reduction in the assessment of the disability when the condition was Static since last RMB.

Taking into consideration above facts and also the fact that the Applicant's disability was considered as Aggravated by Military Service, we are of the considered view that the Applicant is eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension @ 20% from the date of his discharge from Service. However, since there has been an inordinate hiatus of more than 22 years in filing the OA, the arrears need to be restricted to 3 years prior to the date of filing the OA. The OA has been filed on 26.07.2021.

10. In-fine, the OA is allowed and the Respondents are directed to grant Disability Element of Pension to the Applicant @ 20% for life wef 26.07.2018. As regards rounding off of disability element of disability pension, the Respondents may consider the same in terms of 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. The arrears accruing thereof shall be paid to the Applicant within eight months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order, failing which, the arrears shall carry interest at 6% per annum till the date of its payment.

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

12. No order on costs.

Sd/- XXX

Sd/- XXX

(SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-