Ex Sub Ram Swaroop vs UOI & Others on 17 March 2026

O R D E R

17.03.2026

1. By way of this Application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has prayed for grant of Disability Element of Pension duly rounded off to 50% along with interest on arrears @ 18% per annum.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Army on 28.12.1993 and was discharged from Service on 31.12.2021 on completion of normal service limit. While in Service, the Applicant suffered from two Disabilities, viz., (i) B/L Sensory Neural Hearing Loss“ in the year 2010 while posted at Udhampur (J&K) and (ii) “Transient Ischaemic Attack” in the year 2018 while posted in Kolkata. The Applicant was placed in permanent low medical category and was retained in service by providing sheltered appointment till completion of his terms of engagement. The duly constituted Release Medical Board assessed his Disabilities, viz., (i)

“B/L Sensory Neural Hearing Loss“ @ 40% and (ii) “Transient Ischaemic Attack” @ 20% with composite disability @ 52% for life and opined the same as Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated by Military Service. The Applicant has been granted Service Pension for life, however, Disability Element of Disability Pension has not been granted on the grounds of the disabilities considered as NANA by the duly constituted Release Medical Board. The Applicant has placed reliance on Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of UOI & Anr Vs Rajbir Singh, JT 2015(2) SC 392 and submitted that he suffered from the disabilities while in service and, hence, the same ought to have been considered as Attributable to Military Service. 1st and 2nd Appeals preferred by the Applicant against rejection of Disability Pension claim have been rejected by the Competent Authorities. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed present OA.

3. The Respondents have filed a detailed reply to the Application. The Respondents have not contested the basic facts submitted by the Applicant and have submitted that after rendering 28 years and 4 days of service, the Applicant was discharged from Service on completion of terms of engagement in the rank of Subedar and he was not granted extension of two years as he was unwilling to serve in low medical category. The disabilities of the Applicant, viz.,

(i) B/L Sensory Neural Hearing Loss and (ii) Transient Ischemic Attach were considered as NANA by the duly constituted Release Medical Board in terms of Para 23 and 14 of Chapter VI of Guide to Medical Officers, 2008 respectively. Therefore, the Applicant was not entitled for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension in terms of Regulation 53(a) of Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008 (Part-1). The Medical examination carried out at the time of enrolment is not exhaustive and it may not detect some dormant disease. Certain hereditary constitutional and congenital diseases may manifest later in life, irrespective of service conditions. Therefore, he is not eligible for grant of Disability Pension. The Respondents have placed reliance on Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Ors Vs. AV Damodaran (dead) through LRs and others, (2009) 9 SCC 140 and have submitted that the duly constituted Release Medical Board has considered the disabilities of the Applicant as NANA after physically examining the Applicant and based on medical reports and, hence, being a body of medical experts, its opinion has to be given due value, weight and credence. Moreover, 1st and 2nd Appeals preferred by the Applicant against rejection of Disability Pension claim have also been rejected by the Competent Authorities. In view of the above averments, the Respondents submitted that the OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

4. During the course of arguments, Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Respondents have considered the disabilities of the Applicant as NANA in terms of Paragraphs 14 and 23 of Guide to Medical Officers, 2008 without giving any specific reasons and grounds and prayed that the Applicant may be brought before a Review Medical Board to assess the attributability/aggravation, to which Learned Counsel for the Respondents raised no objection.

5. After going through the averments of the Learned Counsels and the material available on record, the following facts emerge :- (a) The Applicant was enrolled in Army on 28.12.1993. The Applicant rendered his unwillingness to serve in low medical category on completion of normal service limit. Therefore, he was not granted extension for two years and after rendering more than 28 years of service, he was discharged from Service on 31.12.2021 on completion of terms of engagement in the rank of Subedar.

(b) Release Medical Board assessed his Composite Disability at 52% for life and considered it as NANA.

(c) The Applicant has been granted Service Pension for life. However, Disability Element of Disability Pension has not been granted on the grounds that the disability of the Applicant was considered as NANA.

(d) 1st & 2nd Appeals preferred by the Applicant have also been rejected by the Competent Authorities.

6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record.

7. Relevant paragraphs of Guide to Medical Officers, 2008 for conceding the attributability/aggravation of the aforesaid diseases reads as sunder:- “14. Cerebrovascular Accident (Stroke). Stroke or cerebrovascular accident is a disease of acute onset leading to neurological deficit such as hemiplegia caused by intravascular events. Cerebral infraction following thrombosis and embolism accounts for a large number of cases whereas cerebral hemorrhage is the cause only in a few cases. Atherosclerotic thrombosis is of gradual onset and any permanent neurologic deficit is preceded by TIAs (Transient Ischaemic Attacks).

TIAs result mostly from embolism of thrombus or platelet material from an extra cerebral artery (internal carotid) and some times due to stenosis of a major artery, altering hemodynamics in the event of change of posture and exertion.

Mural thrombosis from the heart in IHD and SBE and ulcerated plaques of atherosclerotic arteries are the principal source of embolism.

Among other causes, physical trauma (heat) and mechanical trauma and arteritis associated with infection like TB, connective tissue disorder (PAN, SLE) can give rise to stroke. Service in HAA can precipitate stroke by virtue of hypercoagulable state.

About half of the strokes caused by cerebral hemorrhage are due to subarachnoid hemorrhage from rupture of a berry aneurysm (Circle of Willis) and less commonly due to arteriovenous malformation. Remaining cases of hemorrhage in cerebral substance are due to rupture of small perforating arteries/arterioles weakened by hypertension or atheromatous degenerations.

The majority cases exhibit greater degree of hemiparesis dysphasia (if dominant hemisphere is involved), hemianaesthesia and hemianaopia. In some cases ataxia, cranial nerve palsy, nystagmus may be the presentation depending on the territory of brain involved.

It will be appropriate to award attributability if there is sufficient evidence of infection underlying the disease and physical and mechanical trauma related to service.

Aggravation can be conceded when atheroscelerosis is the underlying cause and exceptional stress and strain of service is in evidence irrespective of his service in peace or field.

It nearly takes 6 months for complete recovery. However, cases showing no sign of improvement up to two years are unlikely to improve further and should be labeled as permanent.

23. Deafness. In the great majority cases of ear disease it is necessary to investigate the condition of hearing and to ascertain whether the deafness if present is due to involvement of sensory neural apparatus or conduction apparatus. The common causes of conductive deafness are wax, Otitis media and Otosclerosis.

Sensory neural deafness is either due to disease of cochlea or auditory fibres in the 8th nerve and its connection in the brain stem. Here both air and bone conduction is affected and is frequently associated with tinnitus.

The common causes are:

(a) Infection.

Viral infection e.g. mumps, influenza. Cerebrospinal fever. TB meningitis. Labrynthitis complicating otitis. Media (commonest cause of SN deafness). Ramsay Hunt Syndrome (Harpes-Zoster Oticus).

(b) Toxic Drugs and Chemicals.

Tabacco, alcohol (rarely). Quinine, streptomycin, kanamycin, neomycin, vancomycin, lead, arsenic.

(c) Degenerative diseases e.g. Multiple sclerosis.

(d) Injury.

(e) Tumours e.g. Acoustic neuroma.

(f) Meniere’s disease (affecting cochlear apparatus).

(g) Senile deafness due to involvement of cochlear apparatus, Caisson workers, drivers, airmen and mountaineers and persons posted in HAA are liable to develop deafness due to labrynthine injury (hemorrhage, thrombosis or embolism) resulting from sudden compression/decompression and hypercoagulable state).

However, those working in close proximity of gun fire (small arms, grenade, arty guns, bomb blasts and tanks) and in constant exposure to blast of loud noises such as working with aero engines, riveters, factory workers run the risk of labrynthine deafness. In these cases intensity of continuity, duration and distance of sound nuisance should be considered before conceding aggravation.”

8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI & Anr. Vs Rajbir Singh (Supra), summed up as follows :- “11. From a conjoint and harmonious reading of Rules 5, 9 and 14 of the Entitlement Rules (Supra) the following guiding principles emerge :-

(i) A member is presumed to have been in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service except as to physical disabilities noticed or recorded at the time of entrance;

(ii) In the event of being discharged from service on medical grounds at any subsequent stage it must be presumed that any such deterioration in his health which has taken place is due to such military service;

(iii) The disease which has led to any individual’s discharge or death will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service, if no note of it was made at the time of the individual’s acceptance for military service; and

(iv) If medical opinion holds that the disease, because of which the individual was discharged, could not have been detected on medical examination prior to acceptance of service, reasons for the same shall be stated”.

9. After considering the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajbir Singh (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI & Ors Vs Ex Sep R Munusamy in Civil Appeal No 6536/2021 decided on 19.07.2022, held that the mere fact that an ailment or disease may have arisen in service does not mean that the ailment or disease is attributable to service conditions, the relevant paragraphs of which reads as under:-

“20. Rule 14(b) of the Entitlement Rules relied upon in Rajbir Singh (supra) is not attracted in this case, because the Respondent was not discharged on account of any disease, ailment or disability, but for administrative reasons. The Rule is only attracted when a disease leads to an individuals discharge or death. Such disease is ordinarily to be deemed to have arisen in service, if no note of it was made at the time of the individuals acceptance for military service, but not always. In any case, the presumption under Rule 14(b) of the Entitlement Rules is rebuttable. If medical opinion holds, for reasons to be stated, that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior to acceptance for service, the disease will not be deemed to have arisen during service. There was no direction on the Review Medical Board to give any opinion as to the question of whether the ailment of the Respondent could or could not have been detected at the time of his recruitment. Furthermore, the mere fact that an ailment or disease may have arisen in service does not mean that the ailment or disease is attributable to service conditions.

21. In the instant case, as observed above, the discharge of the Respondent was not on account of any disability or disease but on administrative grounds and such discharge was not questioned for two decades. The judgment in Rajbir Singh (supra) or the judgments relied upon in Rajbir Singh (supra) have no application in the facts and circumstances of this case. The learned Tribunal noted red ink entries in the service records of the Respondent on the ground of unauthorized absence, but arrived at the purported finding in effect that the absence of the Respondent was only on account of his ailment/disability. Such finding is patently conjectural, and not based on any materials on record.

22. Moreover, even in the case of discharge on account of any disability or disease, the authorities might dispute that such disability or disease was caused or aggravated by military service. The Medical Board might, for reasons to be stated, give an opinion that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior to appointment, in which case the disease/disability would not be deemed to have arisen during service.

23. Moreover, as provided in Rule 14(c) of the Entitlement Rules, if a disease were accepted as having arisen in service, it must also be established that the conditions of military service determined or contributed to the onset of the disease and that the conditions were due to the circumstances of duty in military service.

24. Even though, the Tribunal accepted that there might be cases, where an ailment/disease could be wholly unrelated to military service and the denial of disability pension could be justified on that ground, the Tribunal overlooked the mandate of Rule 14(c) of the Entitlement Rules. From the Report of the Resurvey Medical Board, as extracted in the impugned judgment and order, it does not appear that the Review Medical Board gave any opinion as contemplated in Rule 14(b) or 14(c) of the Entitlement Rules. There were no materials before the Tribunal, on the basis of which the Tribunal could have been satisfied that, the conditions of service of the Respondent contributed to his disability and/or ailment. The Review Medical Board only assessed the extent of the disability of the Respondent and the approximate duration of the disability, but not the cause thereof.

25. What exactly is the reason for a disability or ailment may not be possible for anyone to establish. Many ailments may not be detectable at the time of medical check- up, particularly where symptoms occur at intervals. Reliance would necessarily have to be placed on expert medical opinion based on an in depth study of the cause and nature of an ailment/disability including the symptoms thereof, the conditions of service to which the soldier was exposed and the connection between the cause/aggravation of the ailment/disability and the conditions and/or requirements of service. 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.”

10. As regards the judicial review of the opinion of the duly constituted RMB, the observations made by Hon’ble Kerala High Court judgment dt 28.11.2024 in WP (C) No 8414/2024 in the case of UOI & Ors Vs Bhaskaran N are relevant, the extracts of which is reproduced below:- “51. In view of the above conclusions, 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 cases 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 I mind that the opinion of the Medical Board does not confer any indefeasible right on the employee to claim disability pension.”

11. From the above, it is clear that the Applicant is not eligible for disability element of disability pension as his disabilities have categorically been assessed as NANA by the RMB and there is no connection of the disabilities with the military service.

12. However, taking note of overall facts and circumstances of the case as also the facts that the reasons for considering the disabilities as NANA have not been recorded in detail in the Release Medical Board, we direct the Respondents to hold a Review Medical Board of the Applicant and give detailed reasons and grounds on the attributability/aggravation or it being NANA of the said diseases within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this

Order. In case the Applicant is found eligible for grant of Disability Pension based on the opinion of the Review Medical Board, the Respondents shall grant the same within a period of four month thereafter.

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

14. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-