Ex Sep Deep Singh (Army) vs UOI & Others on 28 November 2025

O R D E R

28/11/2025

MA No 156/2019

1. The Applicant has filed MA No 156/2019 for condonation on delay of 37 years and 29 days in filing the OA, which will be heard alongwith the OA.

MA No 157/2019

2. The applicant has filed this MA praying for hearing the matter at the Regional Bench,Jaipur.In view of the reasons advanced in this MA, the prayer of the applicant for hearing the case at Jaipur is allowed.

OA No 138/2019

3. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA praying for directing the Respondents to grant Disability Pension to the applicant wef 09/7/1981 alongwith its rounding off benefits wef 01/1/1996 with interest @12% pa.

4. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 21/9/1976 in good physical and mental state and no note of any ailment/disability was recorded by the medical officers who had carried out the medical examination at the time of his enrolment. He was discharged from service on 08/7/1981 under Rule 13 (3) Item III (iii) of Army Rules after serving for five years, nine months and 18 days, due to the disability, “Schizophrenia”. The disability of the applicant was considered as aggravated by military service and assessed @more than 20%. Since the applicant was medically examined every year and no ailment of any kind was ever detected, the disability of the applicant occurring during service while performing his duties must be viewed as attributable/aggravated to military service. Although the applicant was promised disability pension, the same was not granted to him in terms of Para 173 of Pension Regulations of the Army with effect from the date of his discharge alongwith rounding off benefits. The applicant had submitted various representations to the Respondents, but to no avail. Nor was he supplied with a copy of the medical board proceedings. He further submits that in terms of Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982, the applicant is eligible for grant of disability pension and to buttress his viewpoint, he has placed reliance on the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Dharamvir Singh Vs UOI &Ors. Further, in terms of Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards and Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pensions) 2002, which stipulate that the onus of proof is not on the claimant (employee) and that the claimant has a right to derive benefit of any reasonable doubt if a disease is accepted to have been as having arisen in service, it must be established that condition of military service determined or contributed to the onset of disease. If no note of any disability or disease was made at the time of individual’s acceptance for military service, a disease which had led to his discharge will be deemed to have arisen in military service. Having been aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA, praying for relief.

5. During the course of final hearing held on 12/11/2025, the Counsel for the Applicant, in support of his arguments has placed on record a copy each of the following Judgments :- (a) Hon’ble Supreme Court :-

(i) Dated 23/4/2025 in Civil Appeal Nos 4458-4459 of 2024 in the case of Bijender Singh Vs UOI &Ors.

(ii) Dated 07/5/2025 in Civil Appeal No 998 of 2025@Diary No 20836 of 2022 in the case of Rajumon TM Vs UOI &Ors.

(iii) Dated 06/8/2024 in Civil Appeal Nos 1320-1321/2019 in the case of Ex Cpl Ranganathan Nair Vs UOI &Ors.

(b) Judgment dated 19/8/2025 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in DB Civil Writ Petition No 16083/2023 in the case of Ex GnrMahabir Singh vs UOI &Ors.

6. Vide Reply Statement, the Respondents have submitted that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 21/9/1976 and was Invalided out from Service on 08/7/1981 under Item III (iii) of the Table annexed to Rule 13 (3) of the Army Rule 1954. Since the applicant was in low medical category for the disability, “Schizophrenia”, the Invaliding Medical Board assessed the disability of the applicant @40% for two years and considered it as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, Annexure R/1. Consequent to his invalidment form service, the applicant was granted Invalid Gratuity of Rs 1456.20, including the money order commission of Rs 43.80. Since the applicant was not fulfilling the conditions for grant of disability pension as laid down in Para 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961, Part I, he was not granted disability pension, the decision was communicated to the applicant vide Record Office letter dated 07/1/1983 with an advice to prefer an Appeal if so desired. However, after a lapse of 36 years from the date of rejection of his disability pension claim, the applicant has filed the OA for grant of disability pension. With regard to the MA filed by the applicant for condonation of inordinate delay involved in filing the OA, the Respondents, quoting the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, inter alia, in the case of C Jacob Vs Director of Geology and Mining and Anrs, (2008) 10 SCC 115, holding the view that a person who sleeps over his right is not entitled for any indulgence and that no justifiable reasons supported by document is submitted by the applicant and, hence, the long delay caused in filing the OA cannot be condoned and deserves to be dismissed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Further, with regard to the assessment of the disability of the applicant, the Respondents have stated that as per the judgment dated 20/8/2009 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No 5678/2008 arising from SLP (C) No 23727/2008 filed by the Secretary, Ministry of Defence &Ors Vs Late Sep Damodaran AV through Legal Representatives &Ors, it was held that the medical board is an expert body and its opinion is to be given due weight, value and credence. In view of these factual position of the case narrated herein, the Respondents have prayed for dismissing the OA as it lacks of substance and devoid of merit.

7. We have heard the Counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record. The issue to be deliberated upon is whether the applicant is eligible for grant of Disability Pension for a disability considered as neither attributable to nor aggravated by the duly constituted Medical Board ?

8. From the foregoing and perusal of material placed on record, it is evident that the applicant was Invalided out from Service on 08/7/1981 under Rule 13 (3) Item III

(iii) of Army Rule 1954. He had rendered five years, nine months and 18 days of service. As per the copy of the Invaliding Medical Board held on 08/7/1981, the disability of the applicant, “Schizophrenia” was considered as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service being constitutional and not connected with military service and as per the statement of the Respondents, it was assessed @40% for two years. As per the opinion of the Classified Specialist (Psychiatry), ”the patient had a mental breakdown of the nature of Schizophrenia in whom gradual withdrawal from reality, apathy, indifference, thought disorder, irritability, impulsivity, aggressive and violent tendency were the predominant manifestations and is considered unit for military service in view of the psychotic nature of the breakdown”.As the disability of the was considered as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, the Disability Pension claim of the Applicant was rejected on the ground of not fulfilling the conditions stipulated for grant of the same.

9. On the issue of primacy of the Medical Boards, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs Ravinder Kumar in Civil Appeal No 1837/2009, decided on 23/5/2012, viewed that :- “5. We are of the view that the opinion of the Medical Board which is an expert body must be given due weight, value and credence. Person claiming disability pension must establish that the injury suffered by him bears a causal connection with military service.

6. In the instant case, the Medical Board has opined as under:- “ID. Generalised Tonic Seizure. MA opined that ID is genetic in origin, not connected with service.

Thus, in view of the above, it is evident that the ailment with which respondent has been suffering from is neither aggravated nor attributable to the Army Service”.

10. Further, on a careful scrutiny of the Judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7672 of 2019 (Diary No.27850 of 2017) in the case of Ex CfnNarsingh Yadav vs UoI wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the decision of AFT, Regional Bench, Lucknow in OA No.235 of 2010 dated 23.09.2011 denying Disability Pension to a soldier medically boarded out with Schizophrenia having less than four years service. The Supreme Court was pleased to view: “that though the provision of grant of Disability Pension is a beneficiary one, mental disorder at the time of recruitment cannot normally be detected when a person behaves normally. Since there is a possibility of non-deduction of mental disorder, therefore, it cannot be said that Schizophrenia is presumed to be attributed to or aggravated to military service. “

11. The Supreme Court Judgment (supra) amplifies that mental disorders lie outside the realm of being medically detected during the enrolment process and cannot be claimed to be attributable to rigours of service at a later stage :-

“Relapsing forms of mental disorders which have intervals of normality and Epilepsy are undetectable diseases while carrying out physical examination on enrolment, unless adequate history is given at the time by the member”.

12. The question on attributability or aggravation, where the disability or fatality occurs when the individual was on duty/authorized leave of any kind, has been settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Secretary,Government of India & Others Vs Dharambir Singh in Civil Appeal No 4981/2012 decided on 20.09.2019, relevant portion of which reads as under :- “36. We find that summing up of the following guiding factors by the Tribunal in Jagtar Singh v. Union of India &Ors and approved in Sukhwant Singh and in Vijay Kumar do not warrant any change or modification and the claim of disability pension is required to be dealt with accordingly:- (a) The mere fact of a person being on 'duty' or otherwise, at the place of posting or on leave, is not the sole criteria for deciding attributability of disability/death. There has to be a relevant and reasonable causal connection, howsoever remote, between the incident resulting in such disability/death and military service for it to be attributable. This conditionality applies even when a person is posted and present in his unit. It should similarly apply when he is on leave; notwithstanding both being considered as 'duty'.

(b) If the injury suffered by the member of the Armed Force is the result of an act alien to the sphere of military service or in no way be connected to his being on duty as understood in the sense contemplated by Rule 12 of the Entitlement Rules 1982, it would not be legislative intention or nor to our mind would be permissible approach to generalise the statement that every injury suffered during such period of leave would necessarily be attributable”.

13. In yet another judgment by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI & Ors Vs Ex Sep R Munusamy, Civil Appeal No 6536 of 2021, decided on 19/7/2022, held the view that :- “ …..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”.

14. Moreover, Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, while disposing off an appeal filed by Union of India against the verdict of AFT in the case titled UOI Vs Bhaskaran N (WP (C) No 8414 of 2024) has mentioned as follows :- “ …we are of the view that the AFT will not be justified in rejecting the opinion of the Medical Board in a casual manner in any case. Unless the Tribunal is satisfied that the procedure adopted by the Board was not in accordance with the Rules or binding Guidelines or that the Board failed to take into account any relevant materials or facts or has not given reasons for its conclusions, the Tribunal will not be justified in rejecting the opinion of the Board. If the Tribunal finds the opinion of the Board unacceptable for any such reasons it will be proper on the part of the Tribunal, except in case where there is long delay, to refer the applicant seeking disability pension for examination by a Review Medical Board. Substituting the opinion of the Medical Board with its own conclusions by the Tribunal may not be a proper approach. It is also be noted by the Tribunal that the opinion of the Medical Board is only recommendatory and is subject to acceptance by Pension Sanctioning Authority. Therefore, the Tribunal shall bear in mind that the opinion of the Medical Board does not confer any indefeasible right on the employee to claim disability pension”.

15. It is also prudent to observe the observations made by the Hon’ble Principal Bench, Armed Forces Tribunal in the Order dated 19/5/2023 in OA No 927 of 2022 in the case of Ex Hav Ashok Kumar Vs UOI &Ors, which reads as follows :- “16. We must reiterate that we are not medical specialists to scrutinize the opinion of the medical boards, and it would not only be beyond our jurisdiction but also hazardous if this Court were to examine the accuracy of such expert opinion, based on competing medical opinions. The scope of judicial review does not entail the Court embarking upon such misadventures.As far as judicial review of decisions based on medical expert opinion is concerned, there is no doubt that wide latitude is provided to the executive in such matters and the Court does not have the expertise to appreciate and decide on merits of medical issues on the basis of divergent medical opinion”.

16. Keeping in mind the Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court (Supra) and the clear parameters enunciated for determining attributability of Disability, we find no Causal Link between the disability of the Applicant and the Army Service as opined by the RMB. In this regard judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI &Ors Vs Jujhar Singh, Civil Appeal No 4281 of 2006, decided on 15/7/2011 as also in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence Vs Damodaran AV (Dead) through LRs &Ors, Civil Appeal No 5678 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) 23727 of 2008, decided on 20/8/2009 wherein it was held that the Medical Board is a Specialised Authority composed of expert medical doctors and it is the final authority to give information with regard to grant of disability element or otherwise hold good.

17. As regards certain citations placed on record by the Counsel for the Applicant, it has been seen that the basic law as settled vide various Hon’ble High Courts and the Hon’ble Apex Court regarding supremacy of the RMB/IMB , as the case may be, for categorising disability as ‘NANA’ or otherwise has not been invalidated.

18. No facts have been brought to the fore by the Applicant which suggests even a remote causal link of the Disability suffered by him to conditions of Military service and, hence, we must respect the opinion of the RMB categorising the disability of the applicant as ‘NANA’.

19. In view of the aforesaid and based on the judgments cited above, it is amply apparent that the Applicant’s Disease, “Schizophrenia” clearly falls outside the purview of attributability/ aggravation to military service thus making the Applicant ineligible for a Disability Pension.

20. Apart from the above, we also feel that the Application stands barred by inordinate delay and latches with no cogent reason for the inexplicable delay of more than three decades and it does not deserve to be entertained. In the light of the principles laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of C. Jacob Vs. Director of Geology and Mining &Anr., reported in (2008) 10 SCC 115, wherein it is held that a stale claim cannot be revived for grant of Pensionary benefits. The case is also covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs Rajwanti, Civil Appeal No 583-584 of 2017, decided on 16/1/2017.

21. In fine, we are of the considered view that we find no merit in any of the pleas of the Applicant and the OA is accordingly dismissed.

22. No order on Costs.

23. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

cda/-