Ex Hav (ACP-1) Bhanwar Singh vs UOI & Others on 25 July 2025

1. 1. UOI, through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Govt of India, New Delhi – 110 011

2. 2. The PCDA (P), Draupadi Ghat, Prayagraj, UP – 211 014

3. 3. The Signals Records, PIN 908 770, c/o 56 APO

.... Respondents

**For Applicant**

**: Mr DS Rathore, Advocate**

**For Respondents**

**: Mr Samir Shrimali, Advocate**

**CORAM:**

**HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MEMBER (J)**

**HON'BLE MR. SANJIV MITTAL, MEMBER (A)**


1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA praying for directing the Respondents to grant disability element of disability pension @30% alongwith rounding off benefits to 50% wef 01/5/2019 for life in terms of provisions of the Rules and also as per the Order and Circulars issued by the Central Govt from time to time.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 28/4/1995 in medical category 'AYE'. While in service, the applicant suffered from the disability, Primary Hypertension and was placed in low medical category P2 Permanent wef 30/4/2019. He was discharged from service on 30/4/2019 under Rule 13 (3) Item III (i). He was granted service pension for life for the qualifying service of 24 years and three days as Havildar (ACP I). The RMB assessed the disability of the applicant, "Primary Hypertension" @30% and considered it as neither attributable to nor aggravated by service. He was not granted disability element of disability pension. In support of his arguments, the counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Rajbir Singh, Sukhvinder Singh, Ram Avatar as also in the case of Ex Sgt Girish Kumar, amongst others. First appeal of the applicant against rejection of his disability pension claim was rejected by the Competent Authority vide their letter dated 05/9/2019. Having been aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA praying for relief.

3. During the course of hearing, counsel for the applicant has placed on record a copy each of the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, WP C No 14498/2024 in the case of UOI & Ors Vs Shri Brij Bihari Singh, Ex Nk (TS), passed on 16/10/2024 and in WP (C) No 15493/2024 and CM Appl. 65033/2024 in the case of UOI & Ors Vs Cdr AK Srivastava (Retd) dated 12/11/2024, in support of his arguments.

4. The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement and while not disputing the basic facts, have submitted that the applicant was discharged from service on 30/4/2019 under Rule 13 (3) Item III (i) on completion of service or on reaching the age limit. He had rendered 24 years and three days of service and was granted service pension for the qualifying service rendered. Since the applicant was in low medical category at the time of his discharge from service, the RMB held on 04/12/2018 at MH Jodhpur, assessed the disability of the applicant, "Primary Hypertension" @30% for life and considered it as neither attributable to nor aggravated by service as also not connected with service. The RMB had also opined that the disability of the applicant occurred while he was posted at Peace area and, hence, neither attributable to nor aggravated by service vide Para 43 chapter VI of GMO, 2008. He was not granted disability element of disability pension in terms of extant regulations. First Appeal dated 11/5/2019 submitted by the applicant was rejected by the Competent Authority vide their letter dated 21/8/2019 on the ground that the ID is idiopathic in origin and is per se not attributable to service. Aggravation may be conceded if onset occurs during Fd/CI /Ops/HAA service. In the instant case, onset of the disability was in peace station. There is no evidence of excessive stress and strain of service in the instant case. Hence, the ID is considered as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service in terms of Para 43, Chapter VI of GMO 2002, amended by 2008 and ER 2008.

सत्यमेव जयते

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

6. It is evident that the applicant was discharged from service on 30/4/2019 on completion of his terms of engagement under Rule 13 (3) Item III (i) of Army Rules 1954. He had rendered 24 years and three days of service for which he was granted Service Pension for life. The RMB assessed the disability of the applicant, "Primary Hypertension" @30% for life and considered it as neither attributable to nor aggravated by service as also not connected with service. The RMB had also opined that the disability of the applicant occurred while he was posted at Peace Area and, hence, neither attributable to nor aggravated by service vide Para 43 chapter VI of GMO, 2008. He was not granted disability element of disability pension in terms of extant rules/regulations.

7. 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'. सत्यमेव जयते (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".

8. 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".

9. 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".

10. 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 :- यतो न्यायः ततो जयः "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".*

11. 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.

12. 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 dismissed.

13. The OA is disposed off accordingly. No order on costs.

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

**(SANJIV MITTAL)** **MEMBER (A)**

cda/-

**(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR)** **MEMBER (J)**