Ex Rect Mustak Khan vs UOI & Others on 26 February 2026

O R D E R

26.02.2026

MA No 257/2024

1. MA No 257/2024 has been filed by the Applicant for condonation of delay in filing the OA. It was decided earlier that MA 257/2024 would also be considered at the time of final hearing of the OA.

OA No 162/2024

2. 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 Disability Pension wef 07.04.1985 alongwith Rounding Off Benefit to 50% wef 01.01.1996

with consequential benefits andthat the arrears be paid along with interest @ 18% per annum.

3. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Army on 15.03.1982 and was invalided out of service on medical grounds due to injury “Fracture Tibia Shaft (Rt). The Invaliding Medical Board assessed the disability @ 30% for one year and considered the same as Attributable to Military Service. Accordingly, the Applicant was granted Disability Pension from 04.05.1983 to 06.04.1985 by PCDA (P), Allahabad. Thereafter, RSMB held on 11.03.1985 initially recorded the disability @ 40%, however, it was over-written and re-assessed at less than 20% (Nil) with the remarks “improved condition”. Accordingly, the Disability Element of Disability Pension was discontinued by PCDA (P) wef 07.04.1985. The subsequent RSMB held on 07.01.1987 assessed his disability @ 30% for two years, however, again the Applicant was not granted Disability Element of Disability Pension. The Applicant has placed reliance on Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Sukhvinder Singh Vs UOI & Ors (2014) STPL 468 SC and submitted that he is eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension, even if his disability was assessed below 20% subsequently by a RSMB, as he was invalided out of military service on medical grounds due to the disability suffered due to service factors. The Applicant issued Legal Notice for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension along with rounding off benefits to 50%, but to no avail. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed present OA.

4. The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement and while not disputing the basic facts presented by the Applicant, the Respondents have submitted that the RSMB held on 07.01.1987 assessed his disability @30% for two years, however, the MA (P) at PCDA (P) re-assessed the same below 20% for life and, accordingly, the Applicant was not granted Disability Element of Disability Pension. The Applicant was communicated about rejection of Disability Element of Disability Pension vide letter dt 12.05.1987 with an advice to prefer an Appeal, if he was not satisfied with the decision. However, he did not prefer any Appeal. Since the Applicant’s disability was re-assessed below 20% by PCDA (P), he is not eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension in terms of Para 186 (2) 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.

5. 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?

6. 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.”

7. Further, on the 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”.

8. 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 Release Medical Board @ 30% for two years to below 20% for life, thereby denying him Disability Element of Disability Pension from 07.01.1987 to 06.01.1989. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that since the Disability of the Applicant was assessed @ 30% for two years by the duly constituted RSMB wef 07.01.1987, the Applicant is eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension @ 30% from 07.01.1987 to 06.01.1989. No RAMB in respect of the Applicant was held thereafter as MA (P) had assessed the disability @ below 20% for life wef 07.01.1987.

9. Further, since the Applicant’s disability was re-assessed below 20% for life against the original opinion of the RSMB @ 30% for two years, we also 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 subjected to a onetime RAMB to assess the present medical condition of the Applicant in respect of the said disability, viz, “Fracture Tibia Shaft (Rt)” only and give opinion on the present percentage of the disability.

10. Resultantly, the OA is partially allowed. The Respondents are directed to grant Disability Element of Disability Pension @30% the Applicant for two years wef 07.01.1987 to 06.01.1989 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 the 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, “Fracture Tibia Shaft (Rt)”, and assess the degree of Disability and the probable duration of the disability 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 or otherwise in accordance with extant rules/regulations with effect from the date of holding of the RAMB. Keeping in view the fact that the OA has been filed after a long delay of more than 35 years, we direct that in case the Applicant is found eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension based on the opinion of the RAMB, the arrears of Disability Element of Disability Pension along with rounding off benefits to 50% shall be payable wef the date of holding of RAMB.

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

12. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-