Ex Swr Sep Deva Ram vs UOI & Others on 21 August 2026

O R D E R

21.08.2026

1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA praying therein for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension@ 30% along with Rounding Off benefit to 50% for life from the date of his discharge from Service by considering the disability as Attributable to or Aggravated by Military Service and that the arrears be paid along with interest@ 12% per annum.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Army on 15.03.2004 and after rendering more than 17 years of service, he was discharged from Service on 31.03.2021 in low medical category on completion of his term of engagement for which he has been granted Service Pension for life. While in Service, due to inherent stress and strain of military service and as a direct consequence of Gamma Knife Radiosurgery (GKRS), the Applicant suffered from the disability “Right Parietal AVM Malfunction (Post GKRS) in Dec 2012 for which he was placed in low

medical category and retained in Service. At the time of discharge, the duly constituted Release Medical Board assessed his disability @ 30% for life and considered it as Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated by Military Service (NANA). The Applicant submits that he joined the Army Service in physically and medically fit condition and no note of any disability was recorded at the time of his enrolment in the Army and he suffered from the disability due to stress and stress of military service and as a consequence of surgical intervention. Therefore, his disability should be considered as Attributable to or Aggravated by Military Service. 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 and Sukhvinder Singh Vs UOI & Ors (2014) STPL 468 SC and submitted that he is eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension duly rounded off to 50% from the date of his discharge from Service. 1st Appeal preferred by the Applicant against rejection of Disability Pension claim has been rejected by the Competent Authority and the 2nd Appeal preferred by the Applicant on 03.12.2024 has not yet been decided by the Competent Authority. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed present OA.

3. The Respondents have filed a detailed reply to the Application and while not contesting the basic facts presented by the Applicant, they have submitted that his disability was considered as NANA and net assessment for the purpose of Disability Pension was assessed @ Nil and the Applicant was discharged from Service on completion of terms of engagement and was not invalided out of military service on medical grounds. Therefore, he is not entitled for grant of Impairment Relief. 1st Appeal preferred by the Applicant has been rejected by the Competent Authority and 2nd Appeal preferred by the Applicant is under consideration. The Respondents have placed reliance on Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Secy MoD & Ors Vs. Damodaran AV (2009) 9 SCC 140 and submitted that being a body of medical experts, the opinion of Medical Board has to be given due value, weightage and credence. In the present case, the Release Medical Board has considered his disability as NANA, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of Impairment Relief. In view of aforesaid averments, the Respondents have reiterated that the OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

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

5. On the question of primacy of the opinion of medical boards, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Ors Vs. AV Damodaran (dead) through LRs and others, 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 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 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. 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 individual’s 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.”

7. In the present case, the duly constituted Release Medical Board considered his disability as NANA. In the light of principles laid down in the cases of AV Damodaran and R Munuwamy (Supra), the opinion of medical board has to be given due value, weight and credence. Therefore, in the absence of

concrete medical evidence, the disability of the Applicant cannot be considered as Attributable to Military Service, just because the disability arose while in service.

8. However, taking into consideration that the 2nd Appeal preferred by the Applicant on 03.12.2024 has not been decided by the Competent Authority, we direct the Respondents to decide the same expeditiously within a period of six months from today taking into consideration interalia the prayer of the Applicant in the Appeal as per extant rules, regulations and policies and the judgments cited by the Applicant. The outcome thereof shall be intimated to the Applicant.

9. The OA is disposed off, 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/-