Ex Sub Kheta Ram Bhakher vs UOI & Others on 31 July 2026

O R D E R

31.07.2026

1. By way of this Application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA, praying for directing the Respondents to grant Disability Element of Disability Pension @ 30% along with Rounding Off Benefits to 50% for life wef 01.08.2015 and that the arrears be paid along with interest @ 8% per annum.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Army on 14.05.1987 and after rendering 28 years, two months and 18 days of service, he was Discharged from Service on 31.07.2015 on medical grounds for which he has been granted Service Pension for life wef 01.08.2015. The duly constituted Release Medical Board held at the time of discharge assessed his Disabilities, viz., (i) “Retinitis Pigmentosa” and (ii) “Megaloblastic Anemia” @ 11-15% each with

Composite Disability @ 30% for life and considered it as Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated by Military Service (NANA). The claim for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension has been rejected by the Competent Authority on the grounds of the disabilities having been considered as NANA. The Applicant has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dharamvir Singh Vs UOI & Ors, (2013) 7 SCC 316 and UOI & Ors Vs Rajbir Singh, JT 2015(2) SC 392 and contended that at the time of joining the Army, he was physically and medically fit and he suffered from the disabilities while in service due to stress and strain of military service. Therefore, he is entitled for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension duly rounded off to 50% for life from the date of his discharge from service. The Applicant has further contended that he was granted two years extension of service from 14.05.2015 to 13.05.2017, but the Applicant was placed in low medical category due to which he was discharged from Service on medical grounds during extended period of service. Since he was granted extension of service and was subsequently discharged from Service during extension period, his discharge from service should be considered as deemed invalided out of service in terms of Para 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-1) and, consequently, granted Disability Element of Disability Pension duly rounded off to 50%. 1st and 2nd Appeals preferred by the Applicant have also been rejected by the Competent Authorities. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed present OA.

3. The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement. While not contesting the basic facts presented by the Applicant, the Respondents have submitted that the Applicant’s unit was deployed in Counter Insurgency Operations area in J&K and alternative appointment commensurate to his low medical category was not available in the Unit, sheltered appointment was withdrawn and the Applicant was discharged from Service after issue of Show Cause Notice and considering the Reply filed by the Applicant. As per Para 81 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008 (Part-1), service personnel who are invalided out of service on account of a disability which is attributable to or

aggravated by Military Service are entitled to Disability Pension. In the present case, the Applicant’s Composite Disability was assessed @ 30% but was considered as NANA, therefore, the Applicant is not eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension. The Respondents have placed reliance on Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment dt 20.08.2009 in SLP (C) No 23727/2008 in the case of UOI Vs Damodaran AV and contended that the duly constituted Release Medical Board, which is an expert medical body, considered his disability as NANA. Therefore, the opinion of the Release Medical Board has to be given due value, weight and credence. Further, the Respondents have relied upon Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Defence Accounts (Pension) & Ors Vs S Balachandran Nair (2005), 13 SCC 128 and contended that there should be a causal connection between service and disablement for grant of Disability Pension. In this case, the duly constituted Release Medical Board, after physically examining the Applicant and based on medical reports has opined the disability as NANA and, hence, the Applicant is not eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension. Moreover, the 1st and 2nd Appeals preferred by the Applicant have been rejected by the Competent Authorities. In view of the aforesaid averments, the Respondents have reiterated that the OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

4. During the course of arguments, Learned Counsel for the Applicant relied upon Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment dt 23.04.2025 in Civil Appeal Nos 4458-4459 of 2024 in the case of Bijender Singh Vs UOI & Ors and contended that he is eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension duly rounded off to 50%. He also prayed that he does not press for grant of Disability for ID (ii), ie., “Megaloblastic Anemia” which the Applicant suffered in peace location and was considered as NANA. However, he submitted that he pressed for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension for ID (i), ie., “Retinitis Pigmentosa” which he suffered while posted in Counter Insurgency Operations Area in J&K in December 2012.

5. We have heard Learned Counsels for both the parties and perused the material placed before us.

6. The primary conditions for grant of Disability Pension are mentioned in Para 53 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008 (Part-1), which reads as under:- “53. (a) An individual released/retired/discharged on completion of term of engagement or on completion of service limits or on attaining the prescribed age (irrespective of his period of engagement), if found suffering from a disability attributable to or aggravated by military service and so recorded by Release Medical Board, may be granted disability element in addition to service pension or service gratuity from the date of retirement/discharge, if the accepted degree of disability is assessed at 20 percent or more.

(b) The disability element for 100% disability shall be at the rate laid down in Regulation 98 (b) below. For disabilities less than 100% but not less than 20%, the above rates shall be proportionately reduced. Provisions contained in Regulation 98(c) shall not be applicable for computing disability element.

Notes: 1. An individual discharged on fulfilling the terms of his engagement, his unwillingness to continue in service beyond the period of his engagement should not affect his title to the disability element under the provisions of the above Regulation.

2. An individual who seeks discharge at own request shall not be eligible for disability element provided that the individual who is due for discharge on completion of tenure or on completion of service limit or on completion of terms of engagement or on attaining the prescribed age of retirement and who seeks within one month pre-mature retirement/discharge within one month on request for the purpose of getting higher commutation value of pension, shall remain eligible for disability element.”

7. Regulation 81 (a) of Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008 is reproduced below :- “(a) Service personnel who is invalided out from service on account of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by such service may, be granted a disability pension consisting of service element and disability element in accordance with the Regulations in this section.

(b) The question whether disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service shall be determined under the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Award, 2008 as laid down in APPENDIX-IV of these Regulations”.

8. With regard to primary of opinion of medical boards, Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others Vs. AV Damodaran (dead) through LRs and Others, reported in

(2009) 9 SCC 140, clearly brings out the following principles with regard to primacy of opinion of medical board:- “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.”

9. A case of similar nature has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2259 of 2012 in the case of Bachchan Prasad Vs UOI & Ors, decided on 04/9/2019. The relevant portion of the judgment reads, as follows :- “….. 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%. We do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed”.

10. Further, the issue of grant of Disability Pension where the Disability is assessed below 20%, has been settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI & Ors Vs Wg Cdr SP Rathore, Civil Appeal No 10870/2018, decided on 11/12/2019, the relevant extract of which is, reproduced below :-

“9. As pointed out above, both Regulation 37(a) and Para 8.2 clearly provide that the disability element is not admissible if the disability is less than 20%. In that view of the matter, the question of rounding off would not apply if the disability is less than 20%. If a person is not entitled to the disability pension, there would be no question of rounding off.

10. The Armed Forces Tribunal (‘AFT’), in our opinion, put the cart before the horse. It applied the principles of rounding off without determining whether the petitioner/applicant before it would entitled to disability pension at all.

11. In view of the provisions referred to above, we are clearly of the view that the original petitioner/applicant before the AFT is not entitled to disability pension. Therefore, the question of applying the provisions of Para 7.2 would not arise in his case. In this view of the matter, we set aside the order of the AFT and consequently, the original application filed by the Respondent before the AFT shall stand dismissed”.

11. In the present case, the Applicant had completed his terms of engagement in the rank of Subedar on 31.05.2015. The Applicant was placed in permanent low medical category in Dec 2012 and was provided sheltered appointment at that point of time. Since the Applicant’s unit was deployed in CI Ops Area and sheltered appointment commensurate to his rank was not available, the Applicant was discharged from Service in low medical category on 31.07.2015. The duly constituted Release Medical Board assessed his both diseases @ 11-15% each with Composite Disability @ 30% for life and considered as NANA. The Appeals against rejection of Disability Pension preferred by the Applicant were also rejected by the Competent Authorities after due consideration in terms of extant rules/regulations. Since the Composite Disability of the Applicant was considered as NANA and he is not fulfilling twin criteria for grant of Disability Element, ie., (i) attributable to or aggravated by military service and (ii) assessment of disability above 20%, he is clearly not eligible to be granted Disability Element of Disability Pension in terms of Rule 53 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008 (Part-1).

12. Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment relied upon by the Applicant in the case of “Bijender Singh (Supra) is distinguishable as Bijender Singh was invalided out of Service on medical grounds before completion of terms of engagement, whereas in the present case, the Applicant was discharged from service on completion of terms of engagement in the rank of Subedar and has been granted Service Pension for life.

13. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find that the OA is devoid of merit and, hence, is dismissed. Pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, also stand disposed off.

14. No Order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-