Ex Pnr Pema Ram vs UOI & Others on 9 December 2025

O R D E R

09.12.2025

1. By way of this Application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has prayed for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pensionwef08.02.1982 along with Rounding Off benefits to 50% wef 01.01.1996 along with consequential benefits and that the arrears be paid along with interest @ 18% per annum.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Army on 09.02.1963. Due to stress and strain of military service, he suffered from Disabilities, viz.,(i) “Pulmonary Tuberculosis” and (ii) “Mylagia Low Back” and was placed in low medical category and, consequently, after rendering 10 years of service, he was invalided out of Service on 09.02.1973 on medical grounds. The duly constituted Invaliding Medical Board assessed his composite disability initially @ 100% for one year and considered it as Attributable to Military Service. The disability was reviewed from time to time and, accordingly, the Applicant was granted Disability Pension till 07.02.1982. Thereafter, Disability Element of Disability Pension was discontinued wef 08.02.1982 as the same was assessed below 20% wef 08.02.1982. The Applicant has placed reliance on Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Sukhvinder Singh Vs UOI &Ors (2014) STPL 468 SC and contended that since the Applicant was invalided out of service on medical grounds, he is eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension even if his disability is assessed below 20%. The Applicant made representation and also issued Legal Notice for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension duly rounded off to 50% but to no avail. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed present OA.

3. The Respondents have filed a detailed reply to the Application. While not contesting the basic facts presented by the Applicant, the Respondents have submitted that the OA has been filed after a long delay of more than 35 years and, hence, the OA has to be dismissed on this ground alone. The Respondents have further submitted that the Re-Survey Medical Board (RSMB) held on 30.12.1981 assessed his disability below 20% for two years wef 08.02.1982. Therefore, Disability Element of Disability Pension was discontinued wef 08.02.1982 in terms of Rule 186 (2) of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-1). Thereafter, subsequent RSMB held on 28.12.1983 and 13.01.1986 assessed his disability below 20% permanent. The facts regarding discontinuation of disability element of disability pension were communicated to the Applicant but he preferred no appeal. 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 placed reliance on judgment dt 06.11.2025 passed by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur in the case of Ex HavJiwan Ram ChoudaryVs UOI &Ors in DB CWP No 1209/2024 and AFT (PB), New Delhi Order dt 04.02.2015 in OA No 347/2014 in the case of Ex Hony Nb Sub DS Saini Vs UOI & Ors, and prayed that the case may be remanded back to the Respondents to decide the case in the light of aforesaid judgment/order. Learned Counsel for the Respondents raised no objection if the case is remanded back to the Respondents.

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

6. 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 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 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.”

7. 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 individual’s 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.”

8. Entitlement of disability pension to a person who was invalided out of service on medical groundsand whose disability was re-assessed below 20% subsequently is given in Para 186 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part- 1), which reads as under:-

“186. (1) An individual who is invalided out of service with a disability attributable to or aggravated by service but assessed at below 20 percent shall be entitled to service element only.

(2) An individual who was initially granted disability pension but whose disability is re- assessed at below 20% subsequently shall cease to draw disability element of disability pension from the date it falls below 20 per cent. He shall, however, continue to draw the service element of disability pension.”

9. In the present case, initially the Applicant was granted Disability Element of Disability Pension till 07.02.1982.However, his disability was assessed below 20% wef 08.02.1982 by the subsequent RSMBs. Therefore, in terms of Rule 186

(2) of the aforesaid Pension Regulations, his disability element of disability pension was rightly discontinued wef 08.02.1982.

10. The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur judgment, relied upon by the Applicant in the case of Ex HavJiwan Ram Choudary (Supra) and AFT (PB) New Delhi Order in the case of Ex HonyNb Sub DS Saini are distinguishable as the principles laid down in the cases of AV Damodaran and R Munusamy (Supra), were not discussed in these judgments which states that the opinion of medical boards, being the body of medical experts, have to be given due value, weight and credence. In the aforesaid judgment of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court and Order passed by Hon’ble AFT (PB), New Delhi, while differing with the opinion of medical boards, aforesaid principles laid down in the cases of AV Damodaran and R Munusamy (Supra) have not been considered.

11. However, taking note of overall facts and circumstances of the case as also the prayer of the Applicant to direct the Respondents to decide his case in the light of judgments in the cases of Ex HavJiwan Ram Choudary and Ex HonyNb Sub DS Saini (Supra), we direct that if the Applicant makes a fresh representation with regard to his prayer in the OA within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order, the Respondents shall decide the case of the Applicant within a period of six months thereafter in the light of aforesaid judgments and relevant rules, regulations and policy on the subject and the outcome thereof shall be intimated to the Applicant. As it is, the Applicant cannot be granted the benefit of disability element from the date his disability has fallen below 20% in terms of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-1).

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

13. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-