Ex Hav DR Choudhary vs UOI & Others on 15 April 2026

O R D E R

15.04.2026

1. 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@40% along with Rounding Off Benefits to 50%from the date of its discontinuation, ie., 10.02.1997and 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 11.07.1970 and after rendering 22 years and 21 days of qualifying service, he was discharged from service on 31.07.1992 on medical grounds due to disabilities, viz., (i) “Fracture Head of 2nd Metacarpal (Rt)” and (ii) “Post Nuritic Optic Atrophy Rt Eye” and was granted Disability Pension initially for a period of two years from 01.08.1992 to 21.04.1995. Subsequent RSMB held on 10.03.1995, assessed the the Applicant’s Composite Disability @ 40% for life, however, MA (P) at PCDA (P) re-assessed the same for two years instead of for life from 22.04.1995 to 09.02.1997. Last RSMB held on

01.12.1996 opined his disabilities as “Static”, however, MA (P) at PCDA (P) re- assessed the same below 20% for five years from 10.02.1997 to 09.12.2001 and discontinued Disability Element of Disability Pension wef 10.02.1997. Thereafter, though the Applicant was called to appear before the RSMB but due to incorrect address mentioned in Call letter, the Call Up letter was not delivered to him and the Applicant could not appear before the RSMB. On the basis of Legal Notice issued by the Applicant, he was called to appear before the RSMB and, accordingly, the Applicant reported to MH, Jodhpur for RSMB on 05.06.2024 but due to non-receipt of the documents from Record Office, the Applicant was not entertained by MH, Jodhpur for conduct of RSMB. The Applicant has placed reliance on this Tribunal Order dt 31.05.2022 in OA No 52/2019 in the case of Ex Hav Lal Singh Vs UOI & Ors and has contended that he is eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension from the date of its discontinuation.

3. The Respondents filed a detailed reply to the Application and while not disputing the basic facts presented by the Applicant, they have submitted that the disability of the Applicant was considered as Attributable to Military Service and based on the opinion of Release Medical Board, the Applicant was initially granted Disability Element of Disability Pension from 01.08.1992 to 09.12.2001. Thereafter, RSMB held on 10.03.1995 assessed his disability @ 40% for life, however, MA (P) at PCDA (P) re-assessed the same for two years from 22.04.1995 to 09.02.1997. Last RSMB held on 01.12.1996 again assessed his disability @ 40% for life, however, MA (P) at PCDA (P) re-assessed the same below 20% (15-19%) for five years from 10.02.1997 to 09.12.2001 and, accordingly, discontinued his disability element of disability pension wef 10.02.1997. After five years, the Applicant was called to appear before the RSMB on a number of times but he did not appear before the RSMB. In view of the aforesaid averments, the Respondents have reiterated that the OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

4. We have heard Learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed before us. Now the question arises, as to whether MA (P) at PCDA (P) can overrule the opinion of Medical boards.

5. On the question of primacy of the 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 &Ors, reported in (2009) 9 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 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.”

6. In yet another judgment,on the question of primacy of the opinion of medical boards, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ofEx Sapper Mohinder Singh Vs UOI (Civil Appeal No 164 of 1993) decided on 14/1/1993 observed as follows :- “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”.

7. In the present case, the Applicant was discharged from Service on medical grounds before fulfilling the terms of engagement in the rank of Havildar and has been granted Disability Element of Disability Pension initially for a period of two years till 21.05.1995. In the subsequent RSMB held on 10.03.1995 and on 01.12.1996, the Applicant’s disability was assessed @ 40% for life, but, the MA (P) at PCDA (P), without physically examining the Applicant altered the assessment initially for two years and subsequently re-assessed it @ <20% for five years.Therefore, we are of the view that in the light of principles laid down by various judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court as mentioned above, the MA (P) at PCDA (P) was not justified in re-assessing the Disability of the Applicant. Since, the disability of the Applicant was assessed @ 40% for life by two successive RSMBs, holding of any further RSMBwas not proper and desirable. Therefore, the Applicant is clearly entitled for Disability Element of Pension from the date of its discontinuation, ie, 10.02.1997, duly Rounded Off to 50% wef 01.01.1996. However, since the OA has been filed after a long delay of more than 27 years, the arrears shall be restricted to three years prior to the date of filing the OA on 02.01.2025 in the light of principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI & Ors Vs Tarsem Singh, 2008 (8) SCC 648.

8. In-fine, the Respondents are directed to grant Disability Element of Disability Pensionto the Applicant duly rounded off to 50% wef 02.01.2022, ie, three years prior to the date of filing the OA on 02.01.2025. The arrears of Disability Element of Disability Pension shall be paid within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order, failing which, the arrears shall carry interest at 6% per annum till the date of actual payment.

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

10. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-