Smt Usha Devi wo Arvind Joshi so Lt Cdr Narendra Kumar Joshi (Retd) (Navy) vs UOI & Others on 16 September 2025

1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the original Applicant, Lt Cdr Narendra Kumar Joshi (Retd) had filed this OA on 09/9/2013 praying that the Respondents may be directed to produce the Invalid Medical Board proceedings of the applicant and the Impugned Order, Annexure A/1, may be quashed and set aside being arbitrary and illegal. Further, the applicant may be declared to be entitled for grant of Liberalised Disability Pension or Disability Pension from the date of discharge/invalided out, ie, 27/4/1989. He had also prayed extending the benefit of Broadbanding of disability pension @100% from 

the date of his invalidment alongwith 18% interest per annum and suitable compensation by way of cost may also be paid to him for the mental agony and litigation.

2. On 01/8/2019, the counsel for the applicant has filed an MA No 582/2019 praying for obliteration of the word "Liberalised Disability Pension" cited in the prayer clause of the OA to be replaced for the prayer of "War Injury Disability Pension".

3. During the pendency of the OA, the original applicant, Lt Cdr Narendra Kumar Joshi, expired on 02/1/2024. Therefore, based on the MA No 254/2024 filed by the counsel for the applicant, Smt Usha Joshi and Mr Arvind Joshi, widow and son respectively of the original applicant, have been substituted in place of the original applicant vide Order dated 31/5/2024.

4. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Original Applicant are that he was commissioned in the Indian Navy on 01/8/1977 as an Acting Sub Lieutenant in medical category SHAPE-1/AYE and no disease or disability was noted in his recruitment papers by the recruiting medical officer. During his service span, he served on various Naval Ships. After completion of 11 years, 8 months and 28 days of service, the original applicant was invalidated out from service on 27/4/1989 in the rank of Lt Commander due to the disease assessed @80%. He was granted Invalid Pension, but the claim for disability pension was not processed due to adverse findings of the medical board with regard to attributability and aggravation of disease, Annexure A/2. He further submitted that during the total service tenure at various places, the original applicant transported many times through air as he was Air Engineer by this Branch. After spending more than 10 years of service in various climatic conditions, he faced weather changes like atmospheric temperature, barometric pressure and quality of air, humidity, allergen and irritant content. Thus, he suffered difficulty in breathing and chest congestion due to 

continued exposure of exhaust of fuel or flying aircraft and due to stress and strain. He also faced these symptoms at early morning hours during exercise and at night while sleeping and due to which the original applicant reported sick and subsequently he was invalided out from service wef 27/4/1989 with 80% disability and he was granted only Invalid Pension. He made a Representation to the Respondents to grant Disability Pension vide his letter dated 17/10/2012, but to no avail. In support of his arguments, the original applicant had placed reliance on the Regulation 423 (c) of Regulations for the Medical Services for Armed Forces, Chapter IV to Guide to Medical Officers Military Pension, 2002 and Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards 1982. He had also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dharamvir Singh Vs UOI & Ors, Civil Appeal No 4949/2013, decided on 02/7/2013. and submits that the applicant is eligible for grant of disability pension. Having been aggrieved, the Original Applicant filed this OA, praying for relief.

5. Vide Reply Statement, the Respondents have submitted that Lt Commander Narendra Kumar Joshi was invalided out from service for the disability, "Presenile Cataract", for which he had refused to undergo surgery as noted by the Specialist at the time of his invalidment on the medical board proceedings, Annexure R/1. The condition has been noted by the Specialist to be of a developmental nature, ie, congenital. Consequently, the IMB has not accorded the attributability or aggravation for this condition. At the time of invalidment, he had stated to the medical board that he had Allergic Disorder in the form of Bronchitis since 1981. However, for the purpose of this disability, the Senior Advisor (Medicine) has noted that there was neither clinical nor documentary evidence of the illness suffered, as alleged by him. Accordingly, the IMB had also accorded NIL percentage of disability for Bronchial Asthma in the IMB proceedings. Since the original applicant had not produced any medical documents to substantiate his claim of having suffered Asthma for the last eight years at the time of his invalidment and after careful clinical and radiological examination of the case, the Specialist was constrained to opine that he had no evidence of disability of the alleged illness of Bronchial Asthma. Therefore, due to this reason, grounds for any relief claimed by the original applicant do not exist. The disability, "Presenile Cataract" was adjudicated by the IMB to the extent of 80%, however, the condition was rectifiable by surgery which was refused by the original applicant, but unwillingness for the surgery was not justifiable in view of the excellent prognosis of cataract surgery. Had he undergone surgery, there will all likelihood that he would have attained normal vision. In actual fact, having refused surgery even though having diminished vision with no appreciable improvement with corrective glasses, became the reason for his invalidment. Given the above and the recalcitrance to have the condition treated by the original applicant, the IMB has rightly not conceded attributability/aggravation for his disability. Respondents have also submitted that War Injury-Pension is applicable to service personnel invalided out from service on account of disabilities sustained under circumstances mentioned in Category 'E' of Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence letter dated 31/1/2001 and therefore, he is eligible for grant of the same. Also, Disability/War Injury Pension is admissible only in case the disability is assessed @20% or above and considered as either attributable to or aggravated by service.

6. We have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

7. Perusal of record reveals that the Original Applicant, Lt Commander Narendra Kumar Joshi, was invalided out from service on 27/4/1989 due to the disability, "Bilateral Presenile Cataract", which was assessed @80% for two years and considered it as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. As per Unwillingness certificate dated 30/11/1988 rendered and duly signed by the original applicant, it has been mentioned that, **"I am unwilling for cataract operation on my eyes as advised. I can manage my day to day activities with present vision and I wish to undergo at this stage non operative**

***treatment such as Homeopathy or Ayurvedic etc. The consequences of unwillingness for the operation has been explained to me by the CH (EC) medical authorities and I fully understand it".***

8. Further, based on the Order dated 05/10/2018 passed by this Tribunal, a fresh RAMB of the original applicant was conducted by the Respondents on 31/12/2018 at MH Jodhpur, which assessed the disability of the original applicant, "B/L Presenile Cataract" @50% for life, a copy of which was placed on record by the Respondents vide MA filed on 31/7/2023.

9. During the course of hearing held at multiple occasions, the counsel for the applicant reiterated that the original applicant, given the nature of his profession in the Indian Navy, he was ever exposed to fumes as he was overall responsible and supervision for the repair and overhaul of anti-submarine Sea King Helicopters and various components of various ground equipment in ensuring the airworthiness of aircraft and transmission equipment of various helicopters in use in the Navy during his service span. Moreover, his profession also entailed remaining in Engine room, making his eyes exposed to dust, heat and fumes of the engines, thereby the eyes were susceptible to getting the disease. Therefore, the counsel for the applicant fervently submitted that the disability of the applicant suffered by him due to his demanding professional requirement and, therefore, ought to be considered as attributable to Naval Service, making him eligible for grant of Disability Pension. Counsel for the applicant during the final hearing also has placed on record a copy of the Order dated 19/8/2025 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in the case of Ex Gnr Mahabir Singh Vs UOI & Ors, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has set aside the impugned Order dated 15/3/2022 passed by this Tribunal and granted disability pension @50% to the applicant therein for the disability, "Hysterical Reaction".


10. However, the Respondents reiterated that the IMB in respect of the Original Applicant had clearly stated that his disability was of a developmental nature and congenital. The original applicant also refused treatment of the said disability by emphatically saying that he would resort to alternative system of medicine, ie, Homeopathy, Ayurvedic systems, etc even though he was advised surgery which had good results and his vision would improve. But he preferred to be invalided out and has now demanded War Injury Disability Pension 24 years after discharge from Naval Service.

11. In view of the foregoing and taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case of the deceased applicant, we deem it appropriate to remit the case back to the Respondents for their reconsideration of the plea of the Original Applicant. We expect the Respondents to take a decision in this matter in accordance with rules and regulations and policy on the subject and the factual position of his having worked in the engine rooms as an Air Engineer. The decision shall be taken by the Respondents within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. In case the plea of the original applicant finds favour with the Respondents, the relief, if any, shall be granted to the NoK of the deceased officer applicant, ie, the applicants herein, wef the date of filing of the OA, ie, 09/9/2013 and not from the date of discharge as prayed in the OA since the original applicant officer himself has defaulted in seeking judicial review of the findings of the IMB and the decision of the Respondents in not granting his disability pension after a period of 24 years of his discharge especially when he did not belong to economically or socially backward segment of the Society. In any case, the prayer in OA for War Injury disability pension is rejected as it is not covered under the Rules for grant of War Injury Pension.


OA 238/2013 with MA 582/2019 Smt Usha Joshi, widow & Shri Arvind Joshi, Son of Late Lt Cdr Narendra Kumar Joshi

- 12. The OA is disposed off accordingly. No order on costs.

- 13. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed off.


मन्त्रिपरिषद

(SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A)

cda/-

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)


यतो न्यायः ततो जयः