Ex LNk Himta Ram Choudhary vs UOI & Others on 17 March 2026

**ORDER

17.03.2026**

**MA 487/2022**

**यतो न्यायः ततो जयः**

1. 1. The applicant has filed this MA praying for condonation of delay of three years, three months and 25 days involved in filing the OA. This MA would be considered alongwith the OA.

**OA 355/2022**

2. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA praying that the rejection of disability pension of the applicant vide Order of OIC Records, Raj Rif, may kindly be quashed and set aside and that the Respondents be directed to allow the first appeal dated 19/11/2019 addressed to the Chairman Appellate Committee on First Appeal through the Record Office Raj Rif and pay the disability elements alongwith arrears and all consequential benefits to the applicant from the date of his retirement from service.

3. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the Army in sound health which was duly examined by the enrolling/medical authority. During service in the Army, a very heavy work load was assigned to the applicant, resulting in stressful and physical exhaustion in the Army. After rendering 16 years of service he was discharged from service on 30/4/2019 with a disability. The disability of the applicant, "Idiopathic Generalised Epilepsy" was considered as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service and resultantly the applicant was not granted disability element of disability pension, which shows that the Respondents have given recommendations contrary to their own present rulings and directions and discriminatory for the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant submitted First Appeal dated 19/11/2019 against rejection of his claim to the Chairman Appellate Committee on First Appeal through the Record Office Raj Rif and requested the authorities to consider granting him relief. The applicant in support of his arguments has placed reliance on the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No 4949/2013 in the case of Dharamvir Singh Vs UOI & Ors and based on this judgment, the Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare, Ministry of Defence, requested the concerned authorities to accord sanction for grant of disability element of disability pension. On the strength of this policy, the applicant has submitted reminders to the Respondents, but to no avail. Having been aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA, praying for relief.

4. The Respondents have filed a Reply Statement and submitted that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 03/2/2003 and was discharged from service on 30/4/2019 having been placed in low medical category, lower than SHAPE-1, under Item 13 (3) Item III (a) (i) of Army Rules 1954. He was granted service pension for life, which was revised from time to time. As per the details held with the Respondents, the applicant was downgraded to low medical category P3 (T-24) due to his disability, "Idiopathic Generalised Epilepsy" wef 15/6/2011 and "Obesity" wef 08/6/2018. Since the applicant was in low medical category and in terms of Army Order 46/1980 and Army HQ letter dated 30/9/2010 which stipulates that when suitable alternative appointment for low medical category is not available or when retention is either not considered in the interest of service or it exceeds the sanctioned strength of the Regiment/Corps, such individual will be discharged. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 01/8/2018 was issued to the applicant. The applicant, vide his reply dated 18/8/2018 expressed his desire to continue in service. However, due to non availability of shelter appointment the applicant was not recommended for further retention in service by the competent authority in terms of extant policy on the subject. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged from service wef 30/4/2019 in low medical category: under Rule 13 (3) Item III (a) (i) of Army Rules 1954. He had rendered 16 years, two months and 28 days of service and was granted service pension for life which has been revised from time to time. The duly constituted RMB held on 19/2/2019 assessed the disabilities of the applicant @24% and considered the same as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military as also not connected with service with NIL percentage for grant of disability pension. The Respondents have further submitted that the decision of the applicant for grant of disability element to the applicant had been communicated to the applicant vide letter dated 23/8/2019 with an advice to the applicant to prefer an appeal if so desired within six months. However, the applicant did not prefer any appeal. Respondents have submitted that the First Appeal dated 19/11/2019 purported to have been submitted by the applicant as mentioned in the OA has not been received by them. Further, in terms of Para 27 (c) of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Award 1982, medical authorities are competent for assessment of disablement and entitlement in case of disabilities other than injuries on purely medical grounds. In addition, as per Annexure III of Rule 15 of ibid Rules, wherein name of the disease caused by climatic conditions, affected by stress and strain, dietary compulsions, training marching, prolonged standing environment and altitude are clearly mentioned. In view of these policies, the applicant is clearly not eligible for grant of disability element of disability pension as the disability of the applicant was considered as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service with disability eligible for grant of disability pension at NIL for life by the duly constituted RMB. The Respondents have further amplified that the applicant is not entitled for grant of benefit as prayed for in terms of Para 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961, Part I as his disabilities are considered as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. In support of their arguments, the Respondents have placed reliance on the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI & Ors Vs Damodaran AV, SLP (C) No 23727 of 2008 as also in the case of UOI & Ors Vs Talwinder Singh, Civil Appeal No 3686/2012 holding the view that the opinion of the medical board which is an expert body must be given due weight, value and credence. Under the circumstances, the Respondents have reiterated that the applicant is not eligible for grant of disability element of disability pension.

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

6. It is evident from the material on record that the applicant was discharged from service wef 30/4/2019 after rendering a little over 16 years of service for which he was granted service pension for the qualifying service. As per copy of RMB proceedings dated 27/1/2019, Annexure R/6, the applicant was downgraded to low medical category due to the disabilities, "Obesity", onset wef 07/6/2018 and (ii) "Idiopathic Generalised Epilepsy", onset wef 20/7/2004. The duly constituted RMB assessed the disabilities of the applicant, @1-5% and 20% respectively with composite assessment @24% for both these disabilities with net assessment qualifying for grant of disability pension at NIL for life. These disabilities of the applicant are considered as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service as also not connected with service. As far the first disability is concerned, it has been cited as not related to military service, the second disability, i.e. Idiopathic Generalised Epilepsy, occurred within 1 ½ years of enrolment of the applicant while the applicant was serving in peace station, Kota, with no history of sleep deprivation, emotional stress, physical and mental exhaustion and no history of service in active area and, hence, the disability conceded not attributable to service vide Para. 33 of GMO 2008. It is also prudent to observe that although the applicant was detected as a case of Idiopathic Generalised Epilepsy within one and a half year of joining the service, ie, wef 20/7/2004, the Respondents had shown no alacrity in discharging the applicant from service, but was allowed to continue in service till he attained more than the pensionable service.

7. As regards the plea of the Applicant for grant of Disability Element for the Disability, "Idiopathic Generalised Epilepsy & Obesity", the issue of primacy of the Medical Boards was iterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs Ravinder Kumar in Civil Appeal No 1837/2009, decided on 23/5/2012, which viewed that :- *"5. We are of the view that the opinion of the Medical Board which is an expert body must be given due weight, value and credence. Person claiming disability pension must establish that the injury suffered by him bears a causal connection with military service.*

6. *In the instant case, the Medical-Board has opined as under :-*

*"ID. Generalised Tonic Seizure MA opined that ID is genetic in origin, not connected with service."*

Thus, in view of the above, it is evident that the ailment with which respondent has been suffering from is neither aggravated nor attributable to the Army Service".

8. Further, on a careful scrutiny of the Judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No 7672 of 2019 (Diary No. 27850 of 2017) in the case of Ex Cfn Narsingh Yadav vs UOI wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the decision of AFT, Regional Bench, Lucknow in OA No. 235 of 2010 dated 23.09.2011 denying Disability Pension to a soldier medically boarded out with Schizophrenia having less than four years service. The Supreme Court was pleased to view :- *"that though the provision of grant of Disability Pension is a beneficiary one, mental disorder at the time of recruitment cannot normally be detected when a person behaves normally. Since there is a possibility of non-detection of mental disorder, therefore, it cannot be said that Schizophrenia is presumed to be attributed to or aggravated to military service".*

9. The Supreme Court Judgment (supra) amplifies that mental disorders which lie outside the realm of being medically detected during the enrolment process cannot be claimed to be attributable to rigours of service at a later stage,

10. No facts have been brought to the fore by the Applicant which suggests even a remote causal link of the Disability suffered by the Applicant to conditions of Military service. Further, he was allowed to serve more than 15 years from the date of his diagnosis as a case of Idiopathic Generalised Epilepsy with providing him shelter appointment as per policy.

11. Further, 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".

12. In yet another judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI & Ors Vs 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".

மத்யஸ்த நயன்

13. 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 re-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".

14. 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."

15. Hence, in view of above facts and judgments, it is crystal clear that the applicant is not eligible for grant of disability element of disability pension.

16. As per Order dated 27/8/2025 passed by this Tribunal, OIC Legal Cell appearing for the Respondents had submitted that the Respondents have filed an Appeal before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court against the Order dated 07/7/2023 passed by the Principal Bench, Armed Forces Tribunal, New Delhi, in OA No 829/2020 in the case of ~~Ex Hav~~ Anand Dwivedi Vs UOI & Ors. It is interesting to observe that this Order of AFT, Principal Bench dated 07/7/2023 is not in consonance with the view taken by the AFT, Principal Bench in its Order dated 19/5/2023 in the case of Ex Hav Ashok Kumar (supra).

17. During the course of final hearing on 17/3/2026, OIC Legal Cell, has submitted orally that a decision has now been taken by the Respondents not to pursue the Appeal filed by them before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court against the Order of Principal Bench, Armed Forces Tribunal, New Delhi in this matter, though nothing has been placed on record.

18. However, in view of the foregoing, we deem it appropriate to direct the Respondents to take a final decision in the case of the applicant herein after examining the matter on its merit as well as the principle laid down by the Principal Bench in the aforesaid Order within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Needless to say that the Respondents shall take into consideration the entire gamut of the issue involved with regard to the disabilities of the applicant and the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard while taking a final decision. The outcome thereof, shall be intimated to the applicant.

19. The OA is disposed off accordingly. No order on costs.

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


Sd/- XXX

Sd/- XXX

(SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)

cda/-