Ex Sub Rameshwar Lal Gurjar (Army) vs UOI & Others on 3 September 2026

O R D E R

03.09.2026

1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA praying for directing the Respondents to grant disability pension and its rounding off benefit to the applicant wef 01/7/2020 for life alongwith interest @12%. He has also prayed for award of cost of the application.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the army on 28/6/1990 and was discharged from service on 30/6/2020 after completion of his terms of engagement in low medical category. He further submits that the disability of the applicant, “Primary Hypertension”, with which he was discharged from service, was caused due to stress and strain of army service. However, the applicant was not granted disability element in terms of Regulation 179 of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961, Part I as the same was

considered as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service by the release medical board, as intimated to the applicant vide Record Office letter dated 27/2/2021. In support of his claim, the counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dharamvir Singh Vs UOI &Ors, Civil Appeal No 52013 SC 19. Having been aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA, praying for relief.

3. The Respondents vide their Reply Statement, while not disputing the basic facts, have submitted that the applicant herein was discharged from Army service on 30/6/2020 under Rule 13 (3) item I (i)(a) on completion of service tenure/terms of engagement in Permanent Low Medical Category S1H1A1P2E1. He was granted service pension for the qualifying service. The applicant became due for retirement on completion of his terms of engagement and accordingly, Record Office has issued his discharge order, however, due to sudden outbreak of COVID-19, the RMB in respect of the applicant was not carried out before his impending discharge from service. However, delayed RMB was carried out at the MH, Jaipur at a later date, after obtaining sanction of the competent authority, wherein the disability of the applicant, “Primary Hypertension” was assessed @30% for life and considered it as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Since the disability of the applicant was considered as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, the applicant was not granted disability element in terms of Regulation 179 of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961, which stands revised vide Para 53 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008. The factual position was communicated to the applicant vide Record Office letter dated 27/2/2021, with an advice to the applicant to prefer an appeal, if so desired,within six months from the date of receipt of the ibid letter. However, the applicant has filed this OA with his prayers.

4. We have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

5. It is evident from the material on record that the applicant had rendered 30 years of qualifying service before being discharged from service on 30/6/2020 on

completion of his service tenure in terms of Rule 13 (3) Item I (i) (a) of Army Rules 1954. He was granted service pension for the qualifying service rendered. The delayed RMB held on 27/1/2021 due to the sudden outbreak of COVID-19 at the time of his discharge from service, assessed the disability of the applicant, “Primary Hypertension” @30% for life and considered it as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, with net assessment qualifying for grant of disability pension @ NIL for life. Duly constituted RMB has given its detailed opinion with regard to considering the disability of the applicant as “NANA”, on the ground that the disability is an idiopathic disease having a genetic basis/life style related as per the current medical literature as also no close time association with stress/stress of military service in CI Ops/ HAA / Field. Thus, it has no causal relationship with military service/job profile of the individual. Further, it has been held Not attributable during initial medical board held on 31/1/2017. Moreover, the applicant has been provided with proper medical treatment alongwith sheltered appointment from onset till RMB with no evidence of aggravation in form of any target organ damage.

6. The question on attributability or aggravation, where the disability or fatality occurs when the individual was on duty/authorized leave of any kind, has been settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Secretary, Government of India & Others Vs Dharambir Singh in Civil Appeal No 4981/2012 decided on 20.09.2019, relevant portion of which reads as under :- “36. We find that summing up of the following guiding factors by the Tribunal in Jagtar Singh v. Union of India &Ors and approved in Sukhwant Singh and in Vijay Kumar do not warrant any change or modification and the claim of disability pension is required to be dealt with accordingly :- (a) The mere fact of a person being on 'duty' or otherwise, at the place of posting or on leave, is not the sole criteria for deciding attributability of disability/death. There has to be a relevant and reasonable causal connection, howsoever remote, between the incident resulting in such disability/death and military service for it to be attributable. This conditionality applies even when a person is posted and present in his unit. It should similarly apply when he is on leave; notwithstanding both being considered as 'duty'.

(b) If the injury suffered by the member of the Armed Force is the result of an act alien to the sphere of military service or in no way be connected to

his being on duty as understood in the sense contemplated by Rule 12 of the Entitlement Rules 1982, it would not be legislative intention or nor to our mind would be permissible approach to generalise the statement that every injury suffered during such period of leave would necessarily be attributable”.

7. In yet another judgment by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI &OrsVs Ex Sep R Munusamy, Civil Appeal No 6536 of 2021, decided on 19/7/2022, held the view that :- “ …..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. Moreover, Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, while disposing off an appeal filed by Union of India against the verdict of AFT in the case titled UOI Vs Bhaskaran N (WP (C) No 8414 of 2024) has mentioned as follows :- “ …we are of the view that the AFT will not be justified in rejecting the opinion of the Medical Board in a casual manner in any case. Unless the Tribunal is satisfied that the procedure adopted by the Board was not in accordance with the Rules or binding Guidelines or that the Board failed to take into account any relevant materials or facts or has not given reasons for its conclusions, the Tribunal will not be justified in rejecting the opinion of the Board. If the Tribunal finds the opinion of the Board unacceptable for any such reasons it will be proper on the part of the Tribunal, except in case where there is long delay, to refer the applicant seeking disability pension for examination by a Review Medical Board. Substituting the opinion of the Medical Board with its own conclusions by the Tribunal may not be a proper approach. It is also be noted by the Tribunal that the opinion of the Medical Board is only recommendatory and is subject to acceptance by Pension Sanctioning Authority.

Therefore, the Tribunal shall bear in mind that the opinion of the Medical Board does not confer any indefeasible right on the employee to claim disability pension”.

It is also prudent to observe the observations made by the Hon’ble Principal Bench, Armed Forces Tribunal in the Order dated 19/5/2023 in OA No 927 of 2022 in the case of Ex Hav Ashok Kumar Vs UOI &Ors, which reads as follows :- “16. We must reiterate that we are not medical specialists to scrutinize the opinion of the medical boards, and it would not only be beyond our jurisdiction but also hazardous if this Court were to examine the accuracy of such expert opinion, based on competing medical opinions. The scope of judicial review does not entail the Court embarking upon such misadventures. As far as judicial review of decisions based on medical expert opinion is concerned, there is no doubt that wide latitude is provided to the executive in such matters and the Court does not have the expertise to appreciate and decide on merits of medical issues on the basis of divergent medical opinion”.

10. Keeping in mind the Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court (Supra) and the clear parameters enunciated for determining attributability of Disability, we find no Causal Link between the disability of the Applicant and the Army Service as opined by the RMB. In this regard judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI &Ors Vs Jujhar Singh, Civil Appeal No 4281 of 2006, decided on 15/7/2011 as also in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence Vs Damodaran AV (Dead) through LRs &Ors, Civil Appeal No 5678 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) 23727 of 2008, decided on 20/8/2009 wherein it was held that the Medical Board is a Specialised Authority composed of expert medical doctors and it is the final authority to give information with regard to grant of disability element or otherwise hold good.

11. Moreover, no facts have been brought to the fore by the Applicant which suggests even a remote causal link of the Disability suffered by him to conditions of Military service.

12. In fine, we are of the considered view that we find no merit in any of the pleas of the Applicant and the OA is accordingly dismissed.

OA No 456/2021 JC - 480370Y Ex Sub Rameshwar Lal Gurjar

13. No order on Costs.

14. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed off.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

cda/-