Ex ALD Ramchander Mandiwal 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 Pension wef 27.07.1985 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 12.10.1974.Due to stress and strain of military service, he suffered from Disabilities, viz.,(i) Schizophrenia” and (ii) “FITS (NYD)” and was placed in low medical category and, consequently, after rendering 10 years, 9 months and 15 days of service, he was discharged from Service on 27.07.1985 on medical grounds. The duly constituted Release Medical Board held at the time of his discharge, assessed his composite disability @ 80% for five years and considered it as Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated by Military Service (NANA). The Applicant has been granted Service Element of Disability Pension for life, however, Disability Element of Disability

Pension has not been granted on the grounds that the duly constituted Release Medical Board considered his disability as Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated by Military Service (NANA). The Applicant submits that he joined the Army in a physically and medically fit condition and he suffered from the disabilities due to service factors and, thus, the disabilities suffered in service should have been considered as Attributable to Military Service. In support of his claim, the Applicant has placed reliance on Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Dharamvir Singh Vs UOI & Ors, (2013) 7 SCC 316. The Applicant issued Legal Notice for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension but the same was rejected vide impugned Order dt 07.12.2018. 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 havesubmitted that the OA has been filed after a long delay of more than 33 years and, hence, has to be dismissed on this ground alone. The Respondents have further submitted that the Applicant’s disability was considered as NANA, therefore, he was not entitled for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension in terms of Rule 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-1). Moreover, 1st appeal preferred by the Applicant has also been rejected by the Competent Authority on 29.08.1986. 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Rajumon T.M. Vs UOI & Ors, AIR 2025 SC 2804and prayed that the case may be remanded back to the Respondents to decide the case in the light of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajumon TM (Supra). 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 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.”

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 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.”

8. 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 can’t be considered as

Attributable to Military Service, just because the disability arose while in service. Moreover, the Applicant has filed OA after about 35 years from the date of his invalidation out. It shows that he was quite contended with the non-grant of disability element and filing of this OA is an afterthought, as he himself was not interested in pursuing his case for grant of disability element as it was not due to him.

9. 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Rajumon TM (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 Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Rajumon TM (Supra) and relevant rules, regulations and policy on the subject. The outcome thereof shall be intimated to the Applicant.

10. The OA is disposed off, accordingly.

Pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, also stand disposed off.

11. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-