Ex LD (TS) Kamal Singh vs UOI & Others on 16 December 2025

O R D E R

16.12.2025

1. By way of this Application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has prayed for directing the Respondents to grant Disability Element of Disability Pension duly rounded off to 50% wef 27.09.2004 in the light of Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Sukhvinder Singh Vs UOI & Ors (2014) STPL 468 SC and that the arrears be paid along with interest @ 10% per annum.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Army on 30.04.1983 and after rendering 17 years and one day of Service, he was invalided out of Military Service on 30.04.2000 due to disability “Multiple Callosities Lt Foot” for which the Applicant has been granted Service Pension for life wef 01.05.2000. At the time of his discharge, the Invaliding Medical Board assessed his disability @ 11-14% for two years and considered it as Aggravated by Military Service. However, the MA (P) at PCDA (P), Prayagraj re-assessed his disability @ 20% for five years and granted him

Disability Element of Disability Pension from 01.05.2000 to 26.09.2004. Subsequent RSMB held on 05.10.2004 considered his disability as “STATIC” since the date of holding of RMB and assessed it @ 11-14% for life wef 27.09.2004 and, consequently, the Disability Element of Disability Pension of the Applicant was discontinued wef 27.09.2004. The Applicant sought copies of Invaliding Medical Board and RSMB from the Respondents, which they did not provide. Therefore, the Applicant filed CWP No 18066/2006 before Hon’ble Delhi High Court for directing the Respondents to provide him the copies of Invaliding Medical Board and RSMB, which came to be disposed off vide Order dt 05.10.2007 on the assurance given by the Respondents that they shall make available the copies to the Applicant within four weeks. Since the copies of aforesaid medical board proceedings were not provided to the Applicant within the stipulated timeframe, the Applicant filed Cont (Case) Civil No 537/2008 before Hon’ble Delhi High Court which was disposed off vide Order dt 23.03.2009 as the copies of the Release Medical Board and RSMB were made available by the Respondents in the meantime. 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 he suffered from the disability due to service factors and was granted Disability Element of Disability Pension, therefore, he is eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension duly rounded off to 50%, even if the disability came below 20% subsequently. The Applicant issued Legal Notice dt 03.08.2022 for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension but to no avail. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed present OA.

3. The Respondents have not filed detailed Reply Statement, however, they have filed preliminary objections on the grounds that earlier the Applicant had filed CWP No 18066/2006 before Hon’ble Delhi High Court for the same relief which was disposed off vide Order dt 05.10.2007. Thereafter, CCP No 537/2008 in CWP No 18066/2006 filed by the Applicant before Hon’ble Delhi High Court was also disposed off as infructuous vide Order dt 23.03.2009. In order to misguide the Hon’ble Tribunal, the Applicant has falsely and wrongly mentioned in Para 7 of the OA that he had not filed any case before any court for the same relief. The order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court is final and cannot be called in question in any court except in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, subject to grant of ‘Leave to Appeal’ by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. Therefore, the OA is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4. We have heard Learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed before us.

5. Perusal of records reveal that the Applicant was discharged from Service after rendering 17 years and one day of service on fulfilling the conditions of enrolment and not invalided out of service on medical grounds, as claimed by the Applicant. Hence, the OA filed by the Applicant starts with falsehood. At the time of discharge, the duly constituted Release Medical Board (not Invaliding Medical Board, as claimed by the Applicant), assessed his disability @ 11-14% for two years and considered it as Aggravated by Military Service. However, MA (P) at PCDA (P) re-assessed his disability @ 20% for five years and, accordingly, the Applicant was granted Disability Element of Disability Pension from 01.05.2000 to 26.09.2004. The subsequent RSMB held on 05.10.2004, after physically examining the Applicant and based on the medical reports opined that his disability was “STATIC” from the date of holding of Release Medical Board in 2004 and, accordingly, assessed it @ 11-14% for life wef 27.09.2004. Accordingly, Disability Element of Disability Pension of the Applicant was discontinued wef 27.09.2004. The Applicant requested the Respondents to make available the copies of Release Medical Board and RSMB which were denied by them, which led the Applicant to file CWP No 18066/2006 and on the assurance of the Respondents that they shall make available the copies of aforesaid medical board proceedings to the Applicant, the Writ Petition was disposed off by Hon’ble Delhi High Court. Subsequent CCP No 537/2008 in CWP No 18066/2006 filed by the Applicant was also disposed off as infructuous, as in the meantime the copies of the medical boards were made available to the Applicant by the Respondents. However, since the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi had only directed the Respondents to provide the Applicant a copy of RMB/RSMB without going into the merits of the matter, we have considered the matter afresh on merits.

6. As regards the issue of primacy of the opinion of medical boards, Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others Vs. AV Damodaran (dead) through LRs & 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 medial 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. In yet another judgment, on the question of primacy of the opinion of medical boards, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ex Sapper Mohinder Singh Vs UOI (Civil Appeal No 164 of 1993) decided on 14/1/1993 observed as follows :- “From the above narrated facts and the stand taken by the parties before us, the controversy that falls for determination by us is in a very narrow compass viz, whether the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) has any jurisdiction to sit over the opinion of the experts (Medical Board) while dealing with the case of grant of disability pension, in regard to the percentage of the disability pension, or not. In the present case, it is nowhere stated that the petitioner was subjected to any higher medical board before the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) decided to decline the disability pension to the petitioner. We are unable to see as to how the accounts branch dealing with the pension can sit over judgment of the experts in the medical line and comment upon the extent of disability without making any reference to a detailed or higher medical board which can be constituted under the relevant instructions and rules by the Director General of Army Medical Corps”.

8. The sum and substance of the above decision is that the authority which has not personally and physically examined the person cannot overrule the opinion of the Medical Boards which is a body of medical experts and have

personally and physically assessed him. In the present case, the duly constituted Release Medical Board assessed his disability @ 11-14% for two years and considered it as Aggravated by Military Service, which was upgraded to 20% for five years by MA (P) at PCDA (P) without physically examining the Applicant. The subsequent RSMB held on 05.10.2004, after physically examining the Applicant and based on the medical reports opined that his disability was “STATIC” from the date of holding of Release Medical Board in 2004 and, accordingly, assessed it @ 11-14% for life wef 27.09.2004. Therefore, we are of the view that in the light of principles laid down by various judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court as mentioned above, the MA (P) at PCDA (P) was not justified in overruling the opinion of Release Medical Board and re-assessing the Disability of the Applicant @ 20%, without physically examining the Applicant. Therefore, the opinion of the subsequent RSMB held in 2005 that the disability was “STATIC” from the date of holding of the Release Medical Board in year 2004 and its assessment @ 11-14% for life is well corroborated and justified and, hence, does not warrant any interference.

9. The provisions for grant of pensionary awards when the degree of disablement is reassessed at less than 20% are mentioned in Rule 186 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-1), which read as under:- “186. (1) An individual who is invalided out of service with a disability attributable to or aggravated by service but assessed below at below 20 per cent shall be entitled to service element only.

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.”

10. In the present case, the Applicant has been granted Service Pension for life wef 01.05.2000. He was initially granted Disability Element of Disability Pension @ 20% from 01.05.2000 to 26.09.2004 and, subsequently, the duly constituted RSMB assessed his disability @ 11-14% for life wef 27.09.2004. Therefore, in terms of Para 186 (2) of aforesaid Pension Regulations, the Applicant is not eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension, as he is in receipt of Service Pension for life.

11. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the Applicant in the case of Sukhvinder Singh (Supra) is not relevant and not applicable to the facts of this case as Sukhvinder Singh (Supra) was a Recruit and was invalided out of service on medical grounds without granting any type of pension, whereas in the present case, the Applicant was discharged from service on fulfilling conditions of enrolment and was not invalided out of service on medical grounds and the Applicant is in receipt of Service Pension for life.

12. We also find that the Application stands barred by an inordinate delay of more than 14 years after disposal of CCP No 537/2008 on 23.03.2009 with no cogent reason for the inexplicable delay and it does not deserve to be entertained. In view of the above and 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 Applicant is not entitled for any pensionary benefits. The case is also squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs Rajwanti, in Civil Appeal No 583-584 of 2017, decided on 16/1/2017.

13. In-fine, the OA is devoid of merit on all counts and, hence, is dismissed. Pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.

14. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-