Ex Sgt Nabaghana Biruli vs UOI & Others on 20 March 2026

**O R D E R**

**20.03.2026**

1. 1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the applicant has filed this OA praying for quashing and setting aside the Impugned Order dated 23/6/2021, Annexure A/1, denying the disability pension to the applicant, passed by the third Respondent and the Appellate Order dated 06/10/2022, Annexure A/2, rejecting the appeal, passed by the Respondent No 2, may declared illegal and the same may be quashed. He has further prayed that the Respondents be directed to treat the disability suffered by the applicant as attributable to or aggravated by service and grant him disability pension accordingly with all consequential benefits including the payment of arrears thereof alongwith interest @9% per annum.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the Air Force on 20/6/2001. While in service, the applicant served in various parts of the country including peace and field areas. He was invalided out from service wef 30/6/2021 as he became unfit for further service after completion of 20 years, 11 months and 26 days of service, as per his terms of engagement. He has been granted service pension for life. The applicant was compelled to work without any rest and was threatened to face disciplinary action in case he did not do so. A message was also sent to the DSC on gate that he should not be allowed to get out of gate. He had no option but to take over duty on the off days also. This was being done even when another person was detailed on duty. The applicant was also threatened with dire consequences, as if he were some hardened criminal and committed a big crime. It caused the applicant mental stress and strain on his mind. Thus, the applicant was made to suffer mentally and physically for none of his faults and with this disturbing mind the applicant was taken to MH, Barrackpore, as a mental case, where he was administered some injection by which he remained unconscious for about three days. He was declared to be a case of 'Bipolar Affective Disorder' and this disease has not only a causal connection with his duties/service but it is wholly attributable and aggravated by service. Case of the applicant was referred by AMA for RMB opinion vide AFRO Discharge Order dated 08/5/2020. He was accordingly examined by the medical board and invalided out from service wef 30/6/2021. The RMB assessed the percentage of disability of the applicant @40% for life, with disability percentage qualifying for disability pension with duration as NIL for life. The applicant further submitted that a bald remark has been given for holding that the disability of the applicant is neither attributable to nor aggravated by service. It is simply based on the reasons that the disease happened while his posting was in peace area. In support of his arguments, the applicant has placed reliance on the Order dated 29/3/2016 passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal in OA No 999/2014, wherein the applicant therein who was suffering from the same disability as the applicant herein was granted relief. He has also placed reliance on the Order dated 30/3/2021 passed by the Chandigarh Bench in OA No 1008 of 2020 in the case of Rajesh Kumar Vs UOI & Ors. However, the applicant has not been extended the benefit due to him. Having been aggrieved by the non-action of the Respondents, the Applicant has filed this OA praying for relief.

3. During the course of hearing, counsel for the applicant has placed on record a copy of the Order dated 06/3/2023 of Chandigarh Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal in OA No 802 of 2022 in the case of Navneet Singh Sindhu Vs UOI & Ors.

4. vide Reply Statement, the Respondents have submitted that the applicant was enrolled in the Air Force 20/6/2001 and was discharged wef 30/6/2021 under the Clause, "On fulfilling the conditions of his enrolment" after rendering total 20 years and ten days of regular service and was granted service pension for the qualifying service. The applicant had a history of Alcohol Consumption as per the opinion of Psychiatrist dated 22/6/2015, Annexure R/1 and in the background of personal history of alcohol consumption, the applicant has been placed in low medical category (T 24) for the disability, "Bipolar Affective Disorder" which was upgraded to A4G3 Permanent vide AFMSF 15 dated 22/12/2017. The RMB of the applicant held on 09/9/2020 at SMC 32 Wing Air Force, recommended the applicant to be released from service in low medical

---

category, A4G4 (Permanent). The RMB assessed the said disability of the applicant @40% for life with net assessment qualifying for grant of disability pension @ Nil for life and considered it as neither attributable to nor aggravated by Air Force service. The Respondents have further submitted that it is a documented fact that alcohol consumption is modifiable, independent risk factor for contracting Bipolar affective Disorder and as is evident from the successive medical examination, the Air Veteran had modifiable risk factor that was well within his control and that he did not address it. In summary, he by his own actions, contributed towards the possible development of his disability. The ailments then cannot be considered to be attributable to or aggravated by service documents. The disability arose only with the air veteran's being alcohol drinker. He was not alcohol drinker at the time of his enrolment, and, therefore was normal, it is likely that he would not have contracted the disability in the absence of his habit of consumption of alcohol. Hence, there is no question of the disability being detected at the time of his enrolment. In view of the above, the disability cannot be considered as either attributable to or aggravated to his service in the Air Force. Therefore, the applicant is not eligible for grant of disability element of disability pension in terms of Para 153 of Pension Regulations for Air Force Part I, which stipulates that the primary conditions that disability pension may be granted to an individual who is invalided out from service on account of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by Air Force service and is assessed @20% or above. Since the disability of the applicant is considered as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, the applicant is not eligible for grant of the same. Further, the answering respondents are under obligation to work within the parameters prescribed by law and acted thus. They have followed the procedure which are binding on the Respondents. The reasons mentioned by the applicant are unfounded. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be held that the action on the part of the Respondents is arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory or as such violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the grounds raised by the applicant are not sustainable. Hence, the OA filed by the applicant is liable to be dismissed.

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

6. It is evident from the material on record that the applicant was discharged from Air Force service wef 30/6/2021 on fulfilling the conditions of his enrolment. He had rendered 20 years and 10 days of qualifying service and was granted service pension for life. Further, copy of RMB conducted prior to his discharge from Air Force service reveals that the applicant was diagnosed as a case of "Bipolar Affective Disorder" since 25/2/2015 and as per the detailed summary of opinion given by the Classified Specialist (Psychiatry) that the applicant during his sick leave had become non compliant with medications and with excess abuse of alcohol and had an early hypomanic relapse. It shows that despite the best advice given to him to abstain from liquor by the treating Specialist, he had indulged in binge drinking which created related problems to his health. The RMB assessed the disability of the applicant, "Bipolar Affective Disorder" @40% for life with net assessment qualifying for grant of disability pension at NIL for life and considered it as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.

7. As regards the plea of the Applicant for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension for the disability of similar nature, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs Ravinder Kumar in Civil Appeal No 1837/2009, decided on 23/5/2012, 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.

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 fallment 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".

13. 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".

14. 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 Air Force Service as opined by the RMB. Moreover, the disability of the applicant was due to his own making by indulging in binge drinking and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the disability acquired by the applicant due to his drinking habit can be made attributable to or aggravated by Air Force service. 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 LR's & 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 and opinion expressed by the duly constituted medical board is sacrosanct and express their opinion after taking into consideration all the parameters involved in each case while deciding the attributability/aggravation to military service.

15. We have also considered the Order relied upon by the counsel for the applicant which was placed on record in the case titled Navneet Singh Sindhu Vs UOI & Ors, in OA No 802 of 2022, decided on 06/3/2023 by the Chandigarh Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal. It has been seen that the disability and the circumstances of the case are quite distinct from the instant case at hand and the Order dated 06/3/2023 (supra) is not relevant.

16. 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 dismissed.

OA 65/2023 filed by Ex Sgt Nabaghana Biruli (900825-5)

- 17. No order on costs.

- 18. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

Sd/- xxx

**(SANJIV MITTAL)** **MEMBER (A)**

Sd/- xxx

**(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR)** **MEMBER (J)**

cda/-