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

**O R D E R**

**25.03.2026**

**MA No 545/2024**

1. MA No 545/2024 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.

**OA No 375/2024**

2. By way of this Application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has prayed to quash and set-aside adverse findings of Court of Inquiry and the Release⁴Medical Board and the impugned Order dt 01.11.2023 and grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension @ 20% along with Rounding Off Benefits to 50% wef 01.11.2023 and that the arrears be paid along with interest @ 18% per annum.

3. The brief facts of the case as enumerated by the Applicant are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army on 28.03.2005 and after rendering more than 18 years of service, he was Discharged from Service on 31.10.2023 on medical grounds. While posted in Operational Area in Kupwara (J&K), the Applicant was detailed to participate in the Avalanche Rescue Team (ART) on 20.04.2021, where he slipped and sustained injury in his left knee and got medical treatment as prescribed by the medical authorities and, consequently, the Applicant was placed in permanent low medical category. The Re-Categorisation Medical Board held on 03.08.2022 assessed his disability @ 20%. As per the Injury Report initiated on 12.02.2022, the Applicant sustained injury on 20.04.2021 while on ART duty in Kupwara (J&K). However, the Court of Inquiry held later to investigate the circumstances under which the Applicant sustained the injury arbitrarily opined that the injury sustained by the Applicant was Not Attributable to Military Service, contrary to the fact mentioned in the Injury Report that the Applicant sustained injury on 20.04.2021 while on ART duty. Based on the opinion of Court of Inquiry and Injury Report, the duly constituted Release Medical Board held at the time of his discharge from service assessed his injury @ 10% for life and considered the same as Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated by Military Service. Therefore, the Applicant has not been granted Disability Element of Disability Pension. The Appeal preferred by the Applicant has also been rejected by the Competent Authority. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed the present OA.

4. The Respondents have filed a detailed reply to the Application and have submitted that the Applicant was part of ART from Ustad to Fateh Gali on 20.04.2021. On culmination of ART duty, he did not report to anyone about his injury and continued to perform duties. The Applicant was granted 30 days Part of Annual Leave (PAL) and 29 days of Casual Leave (CL) between period 20.04.2021 to 08.12.2021 and he never reported any injury or pain. Thereafter, the Applicant was granted PAL from 08.12.2001 to 07.01.2022 and during the above leave period, the Applicant got himself admitted in a Civil Hospital on 03.01.2022 and got his Magnetic Resonance Imaging conducted without informing the Battalion and after completion of the aforesaid leave period, he reported to Military Aid Post, Chowkibal (J&K) on 07.02.2022 complaining of pain in left knee and, therefore, he was referred to 168 MH, Durgmulla (J&K). A Court of Inquiry was held to enquire the circumstances under which the Applicant sustained injury wherein the Applicant submitted that he sustained injury on 20.04.2021 during ART duty whereas the witnesses stated that he neither got the injury on 20.04.2021 nor did he inform anyone about the same. Propos, on finding contradiction in the statements of the accused and the witnesses, on 09.08.2022 the Battalion tasked Subedar (Hony Lt) Ramu Ram to inquire about medical records of the Applicant from 168 MH to which he reported that the Applicant showed himself as OPD Patient on 07.02.2022 but never consulted Surgical Specialist. On 12.02.2022, the Applicant showed himself at 92 Base Hospital, Srinagar for further diagnosis and was treated as "**ACL Tear Lt Knee**" and was downgraded to Low Medical Category A3(T-24). Therefore, the Court of Inquiry opined that the Applicant did not sustain injury on 20.04.2021 as stated by the Applicant and opined the injury as "Not Attributable to Military Service". On being placed in permanent low medical category the Applicant rendered his unwillingness to serve in alternative appointment. Therefore, the Applicant was discharged from Service on medical grounds on 31.10.2023. The duly constituted Release Medical Board considered his disability at 10% for life and opined the same as 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 opined as NANA. The Applicant was informed about rejection of the same with an advice to prefer an appeal before the Competent Authority, if he was not satisfied with the same. However, did not file any appeal. In view of the aforesaid averments, the Respondents have reiterated that the OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

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

6. Perusal of Injury Report and Release Medical Board clearly reveals that the injury sustained by the Applicant was considered as Not Attributable to Military Service. During the Court of Inquiry, the Applicant submitted that he sustained the injury on 20.04.2021 while on ART duty but as per the statements of ART party Commander and other members, he neither sustained any injury on that date nor did he inform any one about any injury. On perusal of medical records available at 168 MH by the unit authorities, it was found that the Applicant was examined as OPD patient on 07.02.2022 but he never consulted any Surgical Specialist. Thereafter, he was examined at 92 Base Hospital, Srinagar where he was diagnosed as a case of "ACL Tear Lt Knee" and was placed in low medical category. From the above, it is clear that the Applicant did not sustain any injury on 20.04.2021 while he was on ART duty. He might have sustained injury while he was on leave during the period 08.12.2021 to 07.01.2022 and without informing the unit authorities, he got his Magnetic Resonance Imaging done. With a view to get undue disability benefits, he made a concocted story to have sustained injury while on ART duty in Apr 2021. Even to prove his medical case to get undue benefits, he showed himself as OPD Patient on 07.02.2022 at 168 MH but never consulted Surgical Specialist.

7. Para 6 of Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 2008 reads as follows :- "6. For award of disability pension/special family pension, a casual connection between disability or death and military service has to be established by appropriate authorities."

8. The question on attributability or aggravation, where the disability or fatality occurs during the time the individual is on duty or authorized leave of any kind has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of *The Secretary, Government of India & Ors Vs Dharambir Singh* in Civil Appeal No 4981/2012 decided on 20.09.2019, relevant portion of which reads as under:- "36. We find that summing up of the following guiding factors by the Tribunal in *Jagtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors* and approved in *Sukhwant Singh and in Vijay Kumar* do not warrant any change or modification and the claim of disability pension is required to be dealt with accordingly:- (a) *The mere fact of a person being on 'duty' or otherwise, at the place of posting or on leave, is not the sole criteria for deciding attributability of disability/death. There has to be a relevant and reasonable causal connection, howsoever remote, between the incident resulting in such disability/death and military service for it to be attributable. This*

**conditionality applies even when a person is posted and present in his unit. It should similarly apply when he is on leave; notwithstanding both being considered as 'duty'.**

(b) If the injury suffered by the member of the Armed Force is the result of an act alien to the sphere of military service or in no way be connected to his being on duty as understood in the sense contemplated by Rule 12 of the Entitlement Rules 1982, it would not be legislative intention or nor to our mind would be permissible approach to generalise the statement that every injury suffered during such period of leave would necessarily be attributable.

(c) The act, omission or commission which results in injury to the member of the force and consequent disability or fatality must relate to military service in some manner or the other, in other words, the act must flow as a matter of necessity from military service.

(d) A person doing some act at home, which even remotely does not fall within the scope of his duties and functions as a Member of Force, nor is remotely connected with the functions of military service, cannot be termed as injury or disability attributable to military service. An accident or injury suffered by a member of the Armed Force must have some casual connection with military service and at least should arise from such activity of the member of the force as he is expected to maintain or do in his day-to-day life as a member of the force.

(e) The hazards of Army service cannot be stretched to the extent of unlawful and entirely un-connected acts or omissions on the part of the member of the force even when he is on leave. A fine line of distinction has to be drawn between the matters connected, aggravated or attributable to military service, and the matter entirely alien to such service. What falls ex-facie in the domain of an entirely private act cannot be treated as legitimate basis for claiming the relief under these provisions. At best, the member of the force can claim disability pension if he suffers disability from an injury while on casual leave even if it arises from some negligence or misconduct on the part of the member of the force, so far it has some connection and nexus to the nature of the force. At least remote attributability to service would be the condition precedent to claim under Rules 173. The act of omission and commission on the part of the member of the force must satisfy the test of prudence, reasonableness and expected standards of behaviour.

(f) The disability should not be the result of an accident which could be attributed to risk common to human existence in modern conditions in India, unless such risk is enhanced in kind or degree by nature, conditions, obligations or incidents of military service.

37. In view of the above discussion and the conclusions drawn by the Tribunal in T.A. No. 61 of 2010, we find that the order of the Tribunal is not sustainable. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The Order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the Original Application filed by the respondent is dismissed."

9. In yet another similar case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of **UOI & Others Vs Ex Nk Vijay Kumar, in CA No 6583/2015, decided on 26/8/2015**, holding the view that the injury sustained while at home town cannot be made attributable to military service, the excerpts of which are as follows :- ".....The respondent went for six weeks sick leave and reported back for review and invalidated from service with effect from 28.2.2006. After the accident when the respondent was not actually performing military service, the opinion of the Medical Board "aggravated due to stress and strain of military service" does not appear to be in proper perspective. After the accident, when the respondent was not actually performing his duties and therefore disability cannot be attributed to military service nor can it be said to have been aggravated due to stress and strain of military service.

19. In the light of the above discussion, it is clear that the injury suffered by the respondent has no causal connection with the military service. The tribunal failed to appreciate that the accident resulting in injury to the respondent was not even remotely connected to his military duty and it falls in the domain of an entirely private act and therefore the impugned orders cannot be sustained".

10. In the instant case, it is evident that the Applicant did not sustain any injury on 20.04.2021 while he was on ART duty as he never complained of any problem till Feb 2022, once he returned from leave. Even, between the period 20.04.2021 to 08.12.2021 when the Applicant was proceeded on leave, he neither reported the matter to the unit authorities nor did he get himself treated by Army medical authorities for any injury or pain. The duly constituted Court of Inquiry also held that the Applicant did not sustain injury on 20.04.2021 and opined the disability of the Applicant as Not Attributable to Military Service. Keeping in view the Orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the clear parameters enunciated for determining attributability of Disability and the opinion of the fact finding body which is the Court of Inquiry, it is established that there was no causal connection of the Applicant's injury to Military Service. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Disability has no causal connection to Military Service and is clearly NANA and, hence, the Applicant is not eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension.

11. In-fine, we find that the OA is devoid of merit and, hence, is dismissed. Pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, also stand disposed off.

12. No order on costs.

Sd/- XXX

(SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A)

Sd/- XXX

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-