Ex Sep Khiyan Ram vs UOI & Others on 29 May 2026

O R D E R

29/05/2026 MA No 298/2024

1. The Applicant has field this MA praying for condonation of delay of 42 years, four months and 28 days involved in filing the OA, which would be considered alongwith the OA.

OA No 194/2024

2. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the applicant has filed this OA with the following prayers :-

(a) By an appropriate order and direction in the nature thereof, the action of the Respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and against Article 14and 16 of the Constitution ;

(b) Respondents be directed to determine, sanction and release minimum 20% disability element of disability pension wef 01/2/1981 for life and its rounding off to 50% wef 01/1/1996 for life to the applicant as per provisions of existing orders and instructions as explained in various judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, various AFTs Orders and Circulars issued by the Govt of India, Ministry of Defence from time to time;

(c) Pay entire arrears with 8% interest thereon, from the due date to the date of actual payment to the applicant; and (d) any other relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed alongwith cost of the application in favour of the applicant.

3. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the Army (Jat Regiment) on 24/1/1966 in medical category AYE and was discharged from service on 31/1/1981 under Rule 13 (3) item III (i) on completion of his terms of engagement in medical category BEE (P). He had rendered 15 years and seven days of qualifying service and was granted service pension for the qualifying service. He further submits that he is eligible for grant of disability element of disability pension due to the disability, “Primary Hypertension”, which he suffered and got aggravated while in service. The assessment of the disability of the applicant by the RMB @15-19% is in violation of relevant para of Guide to Medical Officer (Military Pension) 2002, which provides that the minimum disablement for the disability in question has to be assessed @ 30%. Hence, it is proved that there cannot be any formula to assess the disability with absolutely exactness, the extent of even one percent. In support of his arguments, the applicant has placed reliance on a number of orders passed by the various benches of the Armed Forces Tribunal. He further submitted that though his disability got aggravated by military service, the applicant was neither granted disability element of disability pension nor given any information regarding grant/non grant of the same after his discharge from service. Being an illiterate person, not having knowledge of disability pension, he did not appeal till 17/7/2023. However, a legal notice dated 18/7/2023 was served upon the Respondents to consider grant of minimum 20% disability element of pension, but the Respondents have failed to reply to the same even after lapse of 11 months, Annexure A/5. Having been aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA, praying for relief.

4. During the course of hearing, counsel for the applicant in support of his arguments for grant of disability element of disability pension to the applicant, has placed on record a copy of the Order dated 12/11/2024 of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, in WP (C) No 15493/2024 and CM APPL 65033/2024 in the case of UOI &Ors Vs Cdr AK Srivastava (Retd).

5. The Respondents have filed a Reply Statement and submitted that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 24/1/1966 and was discharged from service on 31/1/1981 under Rule 13 (3) Item III (i) of Army Rules 1954 on completion of his terms of engagement. He was granted service pension for life for the qualifying service. Since the applicant was in low medical category due to the disability, “Mild Primary Hypertension with IHD”, wef 04/9/1978, the duly constituted RMB assessed his disability, @15-19% for two years and considered it as aggravated by military service. Claim for the applicant for grant of disability element of pension processed to the PCDA (P) which was re-assessed by the PCDA (P) as of neither attributable to nor aggravated by service and rejected the claim of the applicant vide their letter dated 03/7/1982. The decision of the PCDA (P) was communicated to the applicant vide Record Office letter dated 13/8/1982, with an advice to the applicant to prefer an appeal against rejection of his claim within a period of six months. However, the applicant chose not to prefer any appeal within the stipulated timeframe. After a gap of 40 years the applicant served a Legal Notice dated 18/7/2023 to the Respondents through his counsel for grant of disability element of pension which was replied to by the Respondents vide letter dated 09/8/2023. Respondents further submitted that the applicant is not eligible for grant of disability element of disability pension in terms of Para 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961, Part I, as the duly constituted RMB has assessed the disability of the applicant @less than 20%. Further, since the applicant is not eligible for grant of disability element of disability pension, the question of rounding off of his disability element does not arise. In support of their contention, the Respondents have placed reliance on the Judgment dated 20/8/2009 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No 23727/2008 in the case of UOI Vs Damodaran AV, wherein it was held that the Medical Board is an expert body and its opinion is entitled to be given due weightage, value and credence. The Respondents have also prayed for dismissing the OA on account of an inordinate delay of 40 years in filing the OA.

6. We have heard the Counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record. The issue to be deliberated upon is whether the applicant is eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension for a disability considered as aggravated by the duly constituted Medical Board and re-assessed by MA (P) at PCDA (P) as neither attributable to nor aggravated by service ?

7. From the foregoing and perusal of material placed on record, it is evident that the applicant was discharged from service wef 31/1/1981 under Rule 13 (3) Item III (i) of Army Rule 1954. He had rendered 15 years and eight days of service and was granted service pension for the qualifying service. The duly constituted RMB held at MH Jalandhar Cantt assessed the disability of the applicant, “Mild Hypertension with IHD” @15-19% for two years and considered it as aggravated by military service. The applicant was not granted disability element of disability pension by the MA (P)/PCDA (P), re-assessing the disability of the applicant as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Upon rejection of his claim, the applicant was informed of the same with an advice to him to prefer an Appeal within a period of six months, but the applicant chose not to prefer any appeal. This OA has been filed after an inordinate delay of more than four decades from the date of rejection of his disability pension claim.

8. Notwithstanding the re-assessment by the MA (P), as per Pension Regulations, the disability element can be granted only if the percentage of disability is 20% and above. Since the applicant herein had done full service and was discharged from service on completion of his terms of engagement, he is not entitled to disability element as his disability was assessed at below 20% by the duly constituted Board of medical experts.

9. In this context, 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) had opined 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”.

10. 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”.

11. Moreover, in this case, the applicant was transferred to pension establishment on fulfilling the conditions of his enrolment under Rule 13 (3) item III (i) of Army Rules, 1954 with disability assessed @15-19%, the question on applicability of grant of Disability Element of Pension to the personnel who are discharged from Service on completion of terms of engagement and have been granted Service Pension for life and their Disability assessed below 20%, has been settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bachchan Prasad Vs UOI &Orsin Civil Appeal No 2259/2012, decided on 04.09.2019, the relevant portion of which reads as under:- “After examining the material on record and appreciating the submissions made on behalf of the parties, we are unable to agree with the submissions made by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the disability of the appellant is not attributable to Air Force Service. The appellant worked in the Air Force for a period of 30 years. He was working as a flight Engineer and was travelling on non pressurized aircrafts. Therefore, it cannot be said that his health problem is not attributable to Air Force service. However, we cannot find fault with the opinion of the Medical Board that the disability is less than 20%. The appellant is not entitled for disability element, as his disability is less than 20%.”

12. Moreover, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case UOI &Ors Vs. WgCdr SP Rathore (Civil Appeal No 10870/2018, decided on 11.12.2019) decided that personnel who superannuated from service on completion of terms of engagement and whose Disability is below 20%, are not entitled for Disability Pension.

13. We also find that the Application stands barred by inordinate delay and laches of more than 42 years with no justifiable reasons for the inexplicable delay and, hence, it does not deserve to be entertained on this count too. For this reason, the prayer of the applicant for grant of disability element of disability pension is totally misconceived and is barred by the doctrine of laches and inordinate delay in the light of the principles laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of C. Jacob Vs. Director of Geology and Mining &Anr., reported in (2008) 10 SCC 115, wherein it was held that a stale claim cannot be revived. The case is also squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs Rajwanti, in Civil Appeal No 583-584 of 2017, decided on 16/1/2017.

14. In view of above, we are of the considered opinion that the applicant is not entitled to the disability element for his disability at the time of discharge.

15. In fine, we find that this Application is bereft of strength on all counts and is dismissed.

16. No order on costs.

17. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed off.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

cda/