Ex Hav Mangla Ram Jat vs UOI & Others on 9 March 2026

O R D E R

09.03.2026

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 alongwith Rounding Off Benefit from its date of discontinuation and that the arrears be paid along with interest @ 18% per annum. The Applicant has also prayed for directing the Respondents to call the Applicant to appear before the RSMB.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Army on 28.07.1977 and after rendering more than 16years of service, he was invalided out of Service on 29.02.1994on medical grounds due to the disability “Blast Injury Lt Hand N-880, E-871, V-67”. The injury sustained by the Applicant was considered as “Attributable to Military Service”. At the time of discharge, duly constituted Release Medical Boardinitially assessed his disability @ 20% for two years and considered it as Attributable to Military Service which was reviewed from time to time and, accordingly, the Applicant has been granted Disability Element of Disability Pension. However, the Applicant has been granted Service Element of Disability Pension for life. Thereafter, RSMB held on 18.05.1998 assessed his disability @ 20% for five years, however, the MA (P) at PCDA (P) re-assessed it @ 11-14% for life wef 26.07.1998 and discontinued Disability Element of Disability Pension. The Applicant submits that PCDA (P) has no jurisdiction to overrule the opinion of medical board and the Applicant is eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension along with Rounding Off Benefits from the date of his discharge from service. The Applicant made representations as also issued Legal Notice for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension along with Rounding Off Benefits, but to no avail. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed present OA.

3. The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement and raised preliminary objection that the OA has been filed after a long delay of more than 29 years, therefore, the OA has to be dismissed on this ground alone. While not disputing the basic facts presented by the Applicant, the Respondents have further submitted that the duly constituted Re-Survey Medical Board held on 18.05.1998 assessed his disability @ 20% for life, however, MA (P) at PCDA (P) re-assessed his disability below 20% (11-14%) for life wef 26.07.1998. Since, the Applicant’s disability was assessed below 20% for life by MA (P) at PCDA (P), the Applicant is not eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension in terms of Rule 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-1). In view of the aforesaid averment, the Respondents have reiterated that the OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

4. 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?

5. 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.”

6. Further, on a similar question of primacy of the Medical Board, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ex Sapper Mohinder Singh Vs UOI & Ors inCivil Appeal No 164 of 1993, decided on 14/1/1993, 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”.

7. 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-assessing the Disability assessed by the duly constituted Re-Survey Medical Board @ 20% for five years to below 20% for life, thereby denying him Disability Element of Disability Pension for five years wef 27.07.1998. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that since the Disability of the Applicant was assessed @ 20% for five years by the duly constituted Re-Survey Medical Board wef 27.07.1998, the Applicant is eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension @ 20% along with Rounding Off Benefits to 50% for five years from 27.07.1998 to 26.07.2003.

8. Moreover, as the disability of the Applicant was assessed @ 20% for five years by the Re-Survey Medical Board held on 18.05.1998 and thereafter no Re- Assessment Medical Board (RAMB) of the Applicant was conducted by the Respondents as it was re-assessed below 20% for life by MA (P) at PCDA (P), no Disability Element of Disability Pension was granted to the Applicant, 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.

9. Resultantly, the OA is partially allowed. The Respondents are directed to grant Disability Element of Disability Pension @20% along-with Rounding Off benefits to 50% to the Applicant for five years from 27.07.1998 to 26.07.2003 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 directed to constitute a onetime RAMB at a designated Military Hospital for the examination of the Applicant towards the aforesaid purpose within eight 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, “Blast Injury Lt Hand N-880, E- 871, V-67” only, and assess the degree of Disability and the probable duration of the disablement alongwith any other observation relevant to the case. The findings of the RAMB shall be placed before the Respondents to decide on grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension to the Applicant in accordance with extant rules/regulations with effect from the date of holding of the RAMB, if found eligible.

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

11. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-