Ex JWO Prakash Chandra Sain 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 16/11/2021 denying disability element of disability pension to the applicant and that the Respondents be directed to grant disability element of pension to the applicant from the date of his discharge from service @20% alongwith rounding off benefits in terms of Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI & Ors Vs Ram Avtar, Civil Appeal No 418 decided on 10/12/2014 with interest @18% per annum.

---

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the Air Force on 29/3/1990 and was discharged from service wef 31/3/2021 after completion of 31 years service in low medical category due to the disability 'Primary Open Angle Glaucoma Both Eyes'. The disability of the applicant was diagnosed in the month of March 2017 and the RMB held at the time of his discharge assessed it @ 20% for life considering neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. The applicant further submits that the applicant contracted disability due to his performing duties as a Clerk despite his Trade being Equipment Assistant. He was given the duties of a Clerk and deployed on non trade duties and to work on computer in time bound tasks. The excess exposure before the computer screen severely affected his eyes, resulting in his suffering from the disability. Hence, the disability is liable to be considered due to stress and strain of service. However, the applicant was not granted the benefit due to him. The Appeal dated 28/4/2022 filed by the applicant against rejection of his claim has not been finalized by the authorities in a time bound manner. A Legal Notice dated 09/11/2022, served on the Respondents for grant of disability element of disability pension was also of no avail. He further submitted that he was enrolled in the Air Force in a fit medical category and served in the Air Force at various places due to afloat service while performing military duties. In support of his arguments, the applicant has placed reliance on the provisions contained in Para 10 (b) of Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards 2008 and various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, inter alia, the judgment in the case Dharamvir Singh Vs UOI & Ors, (2013) 7 SCC 316. Having been aggrieved, 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 Order dated 28/7/2023 passed by the Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal in OA No 240/2020 in the case of Sgt Parmendra Kumar

---

Singh (Retd) Vs UOI & Ors and Judgment dated 07/4/2025 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No 4359/2025 and CM APPL 20134/2025 and 20135/2025 in the case of UOI & Ors Vs Sgt Parmendra Kumar Singh (Retd), whereby the Appeal filed by the Respondents against the Order passed by the Principal Bench Order ibid has been dismissed.

4. The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement and have at first raised preliminary objections on the ground that the disability of the applicant was initially detected to have Primary Open Angle Glaucoma Both Eyes and was placed in medical classification A4G4 (T-12) vide AFMSF 15 dated 15/5/2018. He was thereafter reviewed for the disability and was placed in medical category A4G2 (Permanent) vide AFMSF-15 dated 23/6/2019. The medical board assessed the disability of the applicant as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Since the applicant had affixed his signatures on Medical Board proceedings, it signifies that he was not only aware of the decision but he also accepted the same. The applicant was discharged from service wef 31/3/3021 on his own request. He had rendered 31 years and three days of service for which he was granted service pension for life. The RMB assessed the disability of the applicant @20% 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. Accordingly, claim of the applicant for grant of disability pension was rejected by the competent authority. The Appeal preferred by the applicant against rejection of his claim has also been rejected which was communicated to the applicant vide letter dated 26/4/2023. The Respondents have further stated that the medical test at the time of enrolment is not exhaustive and its scope is limited to broad physical examination of the candidates. Therefore, it may not detect some dormant disease, besides certain hereditary constitutional and congenital diseases may manifest later in life,

--- irrespective of service conditions. In view of the above, the ailment of the applicant, Primary Open Angle Glaucoma Both Eyes, cannot be considered as either aggravated or attributable to applicant's service in the Air Force.

5. Vide Order dated 12/12/2024 this Tribunal had directed the Respondents to place on record the status of Appeal filed by the Respondents before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against the order dated 02/5/2023 passed by the Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal in OA No 828/2020 in the case of Ex LME Kailash Baghel Vs UOI & Ors. In response to the Order ibid, the Respondents have filed Miscellaneous Application on 28/5/2025 stating that a Writ Petition has been filed by Navy before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and is pending adjudication by the Hon'ble High Court. Further, since the case of Ex LME Kailash Baghel has not attained finality, the Respondents prayed that the OA filed by the applicant deserves not to be decided on the basis of the Order passed by the Hon'ble Principal Bench, Armed Forces Tribunal in OA No 828/2023.

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

7. It is evident from the material on record that the applicant was enrolled in the Air Force on 29/3/1990 and was discharged from service at his own request wef 31/3/2021. He had rendered 31 years and three days of service and was granted service pension for life. The RMB of the applicant held prior to his discharge from service assessed the disability of the applicant, "Primary Open Angle Glaucoma Both Eyes" @20% 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. It has been clearly stated by the medical board in their opinion that there is no history of close time association of service stress and strain due to posting in field/HAA/CI Ops or an acute attack brought on by worry, fatigue or illness. The onset of disability was in peace area (New Delhi). There has been timely diagnosis of the case and treatment was started immediately. Hence, the disability is considered 'NANA' as per Para 35 of GMO 2008.

8. As regards the plea of the Applicant for grant of Disability Element for his Disability, the issue of primacy of the Medical Boards, 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

9. 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.

10. Further, with regard to attributability and aggravation to military service, Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Order dated 20/8/2009 in Civil Appeal No 5678 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No 23727 of 2008) in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence & Ors Vs Damodaran AV (Dead) through LRs & Others, the relevant extract reads as follows :-

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 medical 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 view of the disease being capable of being improved. All the aforesaid aspects are recorded and recommended in the form of AFMSF- 16. The Invalidating Medical Board forms its opinion/recommendation 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 matter 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.

सर्वो न्यायः नतो जयः

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".

---

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 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. Keeping in mind the Orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court (Supra) and the clear parameters articulated for determining attributability of Disability, we find no Causal Link between the disability of the Applicant and the 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 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 holds good and opinion expressed by the duly constituted medical board is sacrosanct as they express their opinion after taking into consideration all the parameters involved in each case while deciding the attributability/aggravation to military service.

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.

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

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


यतो न्यायः ततो जयः

Sd/- x x x

Sd/- x x x

(SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)

cda/-