Ex Hav Himmat Singh vs UOI & Others on 25 March 2026

1. MA No 529/2024 has been filed by the Applicant for condonation of delay in filing the OA. Having considered the reasons and grounds stated in the MA and also the fact that the pension is a recurring cause of action, the delay in filing the OA is condoned to examine the prayer on merits.

**OA No 369/2024**

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 along with Rounding Off Benefit to 50% from the date of his discharge from Service and that the arrears be paid along with interest @ 12% per annum.

3. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Army on 24.06.1963. While in Service, the Applicant participated in various operations and Battle of Longewala and due to stress and strain of military service, he suffered from Disability "Ventricular Ectopics" and was placed in low medical category and, consequently, after rendering more than 22 years and 11 months of service, he was invalided out of service on medical grounds on 02.06.1986. The duly constituted Invaliding Medical Board assessed his disability @ 30% for two years and opined the same as Aggravated by Military Service. However, MA (P) at PCDA (P) arbitrarily opined his disability as Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated by Military Service (NANA). The Applicant has been granted Service Pension for life from the date of his discharge from Service, however, his claim for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension has been rejected on the grounds of the disability having been considered as NANA by MA (P) at PCDA (P). The Applicant has placed reliance on Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of **Ex Sapper Mohinder Singh Vs UOI & Ors** in Civil Appeal No. 164 of 1993, decided on 14/1/1993 and contended that the MA (P) at PCDA (P) has no jurisdiction to overrule the opinion of medical boards. The Applicant made representations and also issued Legal Notice for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension along with rounding off benefits from the date of his discharge from Service, but to no avail. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed the present OA.

4. The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement and have submitted that the Applicant rendered his unwillingness to continue in alternative employment and, hence, he was discharged from Service on medical grounds on 02.06.1986 under Rule 13(3) III (v) of Army Rules, 1954. The Disability of the Applicant was assessed @ 30% for two years and was opined as Aggravated by Military Service by duly constituted Release Medical Board, but the MA (P) at PCDA (P) opined the same as NANA. Since, the Applicant's disability was opined as NANA 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). Further, the OA has been filed after a long delay of more than 38 years without any justifiable reasons. 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 मन्त्रिमव जयन 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 medical 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 invalidating 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 a similar question of primacy of the Medical Board, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of *Ex Sapper Mohinder Singh (Supra)*, 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 considering the Disability assessed by the duly constituted Release Medical Board from Aggravated to Military Service to NANA, thereby denying him Disability Element of Disability Pension for two years wef 03.06.1986. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the Applicant is eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension @ 30% for two years from 03.06.1986 to 02.06.1988.

9. Moreover, as the disability of the Applicant was assessed @ 30% for two years by the duly constituted Release Medical Board and thereafter no Re-Assessment Medical Board (RAMB) of the Applicant was conducted by the Respondents as it was considered as NANA 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, i.e., "Ventricular Ectopics" only. |

10. Resultantly, the OA is partially allowed. The Respondents are directed to grant Disability Element of Disability Pension @30% to the Applicant for two years from 03.06.1986 to 02.06.1988 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 also directed to constitute a onetime RAMB at a designated Military Hospital for the examination of the Applicant towards the aforesaid purpose within six 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, "Ventricular Ectopics" only, and assess the degree of Disability and the probable duration of the disablement along with any other observation relevant to the case. The findings of the RAMB shall be placed before the Competent Authority to decide on grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension or otherwise to the Applicant in accordance with extant rules/regulations. If found eligible, the disability element of disability pension would be payable wef the date of holding of the RAMB.

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

12. No order on costs.

Sd/-XXX

Sd/-XXX

(SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-