Ex Rect Hanumana Ram Jat (Army) vs UOI & Others on 23 July 2026

O R D E R

23.07.2026

MA No 423/2022

1. MA No 423/2022 has been filed by the Applicant for condonation of delay in filing the OA. Having considered the reasons and grounds stated in the MA, the delay in filing the OA is condoned to examine the prayer on merits.

OA No 310/2022

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 Pension to the Applicant duly rounded off the Disability Element of Disability Pension from the date of his discharge from Service and that the arrears be paid along with interest @ 18% per annum.

3. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Army on 28.04.1995. Due to stress and strain of military training, the Applicant suffered from disability “Sero Negative Inflamatory Poly Arthritis” due to which he was invalided out of Service on 01.03.1996 and was not granted any type of pension. The duly constituted Invaliding Medical Assessed his disability @ 20% for two years and considered it as Aggravated by Military Service. The Disability Pension claim was processed with PCDA (P), but the MA (P) at PCDA (P) arbitrarily considered the same as Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated by Military Service (NANA). The Appeal preferred by the Applicant against rejection of Disability Pension was rejected vide Order dt 10.12.1999 on the grounds that his disability was considered as NANA. The Applicant submits that the MA (P) at PCDA (P) has no jurisdiction to overrule the opinion of the Medical Boards. The Applicant has reiterated that since his disability was assessed @ 20% for two years and was considered as Aggravated by Military Service, the Applicant is entitled for grant of Disability Pension in terms of Rule 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-1).

4. The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement and have submitted that the Applicant was enrolled in the Army on 28.04.1995 and after rendering 8 months and seven days of service, he was invalided out of Service on medical grounds on 04.01.1996 under Rule 13(3) III (iv) of Army Rules, 1954. The disability of the Applicant “Sero Negative Inflamatory Poly Arthritis” was assessed @ 20% for one year and was considered as Aggravated by Military Service. However, the MA (P) at PCDA (P) re-considered the same as NANA and rejected Disability Pension Claim of the Applicant. The Appeal filed by the Applicant against rejection of Disability Pension claim was also rejected by the Competent Authority on 10.12.1999. The Respondents have reiterated that since the Applicant’s disability was considered as NANA by the MA (P) at PCDA (P), the Applicant is not eligible for grant of Disability Pension in terms of Rule 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-1). The OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The issue to be determined in this case is whether MA (P) at PCDA (P) can overrule the findings of the Medical Board?

6. On the issue of primacy of opinion of Medical Boards, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary MoD & Ors Vs AV Damodaran (dead),(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 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.”

7. Further, on a similar question of primacy of the Medical Board, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ex Sapper Mohinder Singh (Supra), held as under :- “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”.

8. Perusal of Invaliding Medical Board reveals that the Applicant’s disability was assessed @ 20% for one year and considered as Aggravated by Military Service. However, the MA (P) at PCDA (P) considered the same as NANA and rejected Disability Pension claim of the Applicant. The Appeal filed by the Applicant was rejected by the Competent Authority on the grounds that the onset of the ID was in peace, without considering the remarks of the Specialist in Invaliding Medical Board that the disability was due to stress and strain of military training. Therefore, in the light of principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court as mentioned above, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the MA (P) at PCDA (P) was not justified in re-considering the Disability assessed by the duly constituted Invaliding Medical Board from Aggravated by Military Service to NANA, thereby denying him Disability Element of Disability Pension for one year from the date of his invalidation from Service. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the Applicant is eligible for grant of Disability Pension @ 20%, duly Rounded off to 50%for one year from the date of his discharge from Service.

9. Moreover, as the disability of the Applicant was assessed @ 20% for one year onlyby the duly constituted Invaliding Medical Board and thereafter no Re- Assessment Medical Board (RAMB) of the Applicant was conducted by the Respondents as it was considered as NANAby MA (P) at PCDA (P), we deem it appropriate to ascertain the present degree of disability, if any, and its probable duration. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the applicant be referred to a onetime RAMB to assess the present medical condition of the Applicant for the disability suffered by him while in service, ie., “Sero Negative Inflamatory Poly Arthritis” only.

10. Resultantly, the OA is partially allowed. The Respondents are directed to grant Disability Pension to the Applicant @20% duly rounded off to 50%for one year from the date of his discharge from Service within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. In default thereof, the arrears shall carry interest at the rate of 6% pa till the date of actual payment. Further, the Respondents are also directed to constitute a onetime RAMB at a designated Military Hospital for the examination of the Applicant towards the aforesaid purpose within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order and to inform the Applicant the date and venue for his presence. The RAMB will give its opinion on the present medical condition of the Applicant for the said Disability, “Sero Negative Inflamatory Poly Arthritis” only, and assess the degree of Disability and the probable duration of the disablement alongwithany other observation relevant to the case. The findings of the RAMB shall be placed before the Competent Authority to decide on grant of Disability Pension or otherwise to the Applicant in accordance with extant rules/regulations. However, keeping in view the fact that the OA has been filed after a long delay of about 22 years, if the applicant is found eligible, the Disability Pension would be payable wef the date of holding of the RAMB.

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

12. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-