Ex Hav Mahtab Singh vs UOI & Others on 2 February 2026

**ORDER**

**02.02.2026**

1. By way of this Application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has prayed for directing the Respondents to grant Disability Element of Disability Pension @ 30% along with Rounding Off Benefits to 50% for two years from 01.08.1999 and, thereafter, as per the assessment made by the RAMB and that the arrears be paid along with interest @ 18% per annum.

2. Perusal of records reveals that the Applicant was invalidated out of service on medical grounds due to Disability "Anxiety State 300 (a)" after rendering 18 years and 5 months and 5 days of service. The duly constituted Invaliding Medical Board assessed the disability @ 30% for two years and considered it as Aggravated by Military Service. The case was processed with PCDA (P) for grant of Disability Pension. However, the MA (P) at PCDA (P) considered the disability as Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated by Military Service (NANA) and rejected Disability Pension Claim of the Applicant in terms of Rule 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-1). However, he has been granted Service Pension for life. The Applicant was informed about rejection of Disability Element of Disability Pension on 20.07.2000 with an advice to prefer an Appeal before the Competent Authority, if he was not satisfied with rejection of the same, however, the Applicant did not file any Appeal. In the light of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Secy MoD & Ors Vs Damodaran AV (dead) through LRs & Ors, reported in (2009) 9 SCC 140 (2009) 9 SCC 140, which held that the opinion given by 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 being an expert medical body. In the present case, the disability of the Applicant was arbitrarily considered as NANA without giving any specific reasons and without physically and medically examining the Applicant by MA (P) at PCDA (P).

3. During the course of arguments, Learned Counsel for the Respondents placed on record copies of AG's Branch, AG/PS-4(B) letter No 39022/24/AG/PS-4(B) dt 09.06.2025, Directorate General of Artillery (Arty-10) letter No A/10150/Legal/Policy/Arty-10B dt 16.06.2025 and Artillery Records letter No 1693/LC/11/NE-5(C) dt 04.07.2025 and submitted that some cases have been shortlisted wherein the cases have been processed for filing of Writ Petition before Hon'ble High Courts and the same are being re-examined for suo-motu acceptance by the Competent Authority for issue of Govt sanctions/directions. In the present case, the Applicant's disability was considered as Aggravated by Military Service but the same was altered by MA (P) at PCDA (P). Therefore, the present case falls under Appendix B of Artillery Records letter dt 04.07.2025.

4. In view of the fact that the Govt is considering the suo-motu acceptance of similar cases, we remand the case back to the Respondents with directions to consider the case of the Applicant afresh in the light of principles of aforementioned letters within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. The outcome thereof shall be intimated to the Applicant.

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

6. No order on costs.

Sd/-XXX

(SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A)

Ssy/-

Sd/XXX

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)


सत्यमेव जयते