Ex Sgt Ashok Kumar vs UOI & Others on 18 March 2026

**ORDER

18.03.2026**

1. 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. 2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Air Force on 06.11.1997. While posted at 51 Air Storage Park, Digaru in 2004, which is a far flung/isolated area, he was detected to have suffered from disability "Schizo Affective Disorder". He was placed in low medical category and retained in service. However, after rendering more than 18 years of service, he was discharged from Service on 30.11.2016 on medical grounds on having been found medically unfit for further service in the IAF. The duly constituted Release Medical Board assessed his disability @ 40%

for life and opined the same as Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated by Air Force Service (NANA). The Applicant has been granted Service Pension for life, however, the claim for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension was rejected on the grounds of the disability having been considered as NANA. Though, the Applicant was advised to prefer an Appeal before the Competent Authority, if he was not satisfied with rejection of the Disability Pension claim, due to the constant treatment of the disease, he could not prefer Appeal. In support of his claim, the Applicant has placed reliance on Hon'ble Supreme Court judgments in the case of *Dharamvir Singh Vs UOI & Ors (2013) 7 SCC 316, UOI & Anr Vs Rajbir Singh, JT 2015(2) SC 392, UOI & Ors Vs Angad Singh Titaria (2015) 12 SCC 257 and Sukhvinder Singh Vs UOI & Ors (2014) STPL (web) 468 SC* and contended that he suffered from the disability while in service and, hence, the same ought to have been considered as Attributable to Air Force Service. The Applicant issued Legal Notice dt 02.01.2024 to the Respondents for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension along with rounding off benefits to 50% from the date of his discharge from Service, but to no avail. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed present OA.

3. The Respondents have filed a detailed reply to the Application and while not disputing the basic facts presented by the Applicant, they have submitted that the Applicant had personal history of alcohol consumption vide Specialist Opinion dt 23.12.2015. The Applicant was initially placed in temporary low medical for disability "Affective Disorder (Manic Episode) vie AFMSF-15 dt 19.07.2002 and the diagnosis was further revised as "Schizoaffective Disorder vide AFMSF-15 dt 10.02.2015. As per the opinion of Psychiatrist Specialists in 2015, the Applicant was under psychiatric care since 2002 and over the extended period, he experienced multiple relapses, largely due to poor compliance with treatment and frequent alcohol use. Despite repeated counseling on the importance on adherence to treatment, his overall response remained unsatisfactory. It was opined that he was unlikely to perform effectively as a soldier or serve as a positive role model for his peers. Therefore, in terms of AO 9/2007 and Para 9(a) (iii) of DGAFMS Memo 171/2002, he was recommended to be invalidated out of service. Further, as per Para 5 of Entitlement Rules, mere occurrence of a disease during service does not, in itself, prove that the service condition is attributable to or aggravated by service. Based on the medical reports and medical history of the Applicant and after physically examining the Applicant, the duly constituted Release Medical Board considered his disability as NANA and being a body of medical experts, the opinion of the RMB has to be given due value, weight and credence. In view of the aforesaid averments, the Respondents have reiterated that the Applicant is not eligible for grant of Disability Pension in terms of Para 153 of Pension Regulations for the Air Force, 1961 (Part-1). The OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

4. During the course of arguments, Learned Counsel for the Applicant placed on record of Hon'ble Supreme Court-judgment in the case of Rajumon T.M. Vs UOI & Ors 2025 AIR (SC) 2804 and submits that the Respondents have considered the disability of the Applicant as NANA 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 in the light of aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, to which Learned Counsel for the Respondents raised no objection.

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

6. 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*".

7. 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."*

8. 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 in mind that the opinion of the Medical Board does not confer any indefeasible right on the employee to claim disability pension."*

9. Perusal of records reveals that the Applicant has history of alcohol consumption, which is considered as one of the causes of mental diseases. Moreover, the Applicant has placed nothing substantial record on which establishes that he suffered from the disability due to service factors.

10. Considering the above facts and the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), it is obvious that the Applicant is not eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability, his disability being NANA and of his own making by continuing to consume alcohol despite advising not to.

11. 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.

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

13. No order on costs.

Sd/- XXX

(SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A)

Sd/- XXX

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-