Col Anil Kumar Verma (Retd) vs UOI & Others on 4 September 2025

O R D E R

04.09.2025

1. By way of this Application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has prayed for directing the Respondents for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension along with Rounding Off Benefits to 50% for life wef 01.04.2022 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 commissioned in the Army on 06.11.1989 and after rendering more than 32 years of service, he was discharged from Service on 31.03.2022 on attaining age of superannuation. While posted in Counter Insurgency Operations (Field) in Reasi (J&K) from 03.07.2017 to 25.02.2020, the Applicant suffered from disability “Primary Hypertension” and placed in permanent low medical category. At the time of discharge, the duly constituted Release Medical Board assessed his Disability at 30% for life and opined it as Aggravated by Military Service. The Applicant has been granted Service Pension for life. The claim for grant of Disability Pension was processed to the Competent Authority at IHQ of MoD (Army), which decided that the disability of the Applicant do not fulfill the eligibility condition as laid down in existing rules/provision for grant of disability element of disability and rejected the same. The Applicant has submitted that the initial and subsequent Re- Categorisation Medical Boards and also the Release Medical Board have consistently considered the disability of the Applicant as Aggravated by Military Service and IHQ of MoD (Army) has no jurisdiction to overrule the opinion of the medical board which is a body of experts. In support of his claim, Learned Counsel for the Applicant has placed reliance on Hon’ble Supreme Court judgments in the case of Dharamvir Singh Vs UOI & Ors (2013) 7 SCC 316 and submitted that he is eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension along with Rounding Off benefits from the date of his discharge from service. 1st and 2nd Appeals preferred by the Applicant against rejection of Disability Pension claim have been rejected by the Competent Authorities. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed present OA.

3. Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement and while not disputing the basic facts presented by the Applicant, the Respondents have submitted that disability of the Applicant was considered as Aggravated by Military Service by the duly constituted Release Medical Board but the initial Adjudication, Appellate Committee on First Appeals (ACFA) and Second Appellate Committee on Pension (SACP) conceded the disability as Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated by Military Service (NANA) since no causal connection with service was established as it does not fulfill the conditions as per Rule 6, 10 & 11 of Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 2008, read in conjunction with Para 43 Chapter VI, GMO 2002/2008 and Regulation 37 (a) of Pension Regulations for the Army Part 1 (2008). 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 Delhi High Court judgment dt 16.10.2024 in WP (C) No 14498/2024 in the case of UOI & Ors Vs Ex Nk (TS) Brij Bihari Singh, Hon’ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam judgment dt 17.07.2025 in WP(C) No 14626/2024 in the case of UOI & Ors Vs Brig Mohanan Nair (Retd) and Hon’ble AFT (PB), New Delhi Order dt 24.01.2023 in OA No 2672/2021 in the case of Cmde Suprobho K DE, NM (Retd) Vs UOI & Ors and submitted that he is eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension along with Rounding off benefits to 50%.

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

6. On the issue of primacy of opinion of Medical Boards, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary MoD & Ors Vs AV Damodaran (dead), (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 the present case, it is evident that the Applicant suffered from the disability while posted in Counter Insurgency Operations (Field) area of J&K in Op Rakshak and the duly constituted Release Medical Board, after physically examining the Applicant and based on his medical history, assessed his disability @ 30% for life and opined it as Aggravated by Military Service. The Competent Authority at IHQ of MoD (Army), however, without examining the Applicant physically, arbitrarily rejected the claim for grant of Disability Pension despite the fact that the Applicant suffered from the disability while posted in Counter Insurgency Operation (Field) area of J&K. Therefore, in the light of principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of AV Damodaran (Supra), this Tribunal is of the view that the opinion of medical board, being an expert body of medical specialists, has to be given due value, weight and credence. The Competent Authority at IHQ of MoD (Army) is not justified in rejecting the Disability Pension claim without any physical examination of the Applicant. Therefore, the Applicant is eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension @ 30% along with Rounding Off Benefits to 50% for life from the date of his discharge from Service, ie., 01.04.2022.

8. The Respondents are directed to pay Disability Element of Disability Pension @ 30% for life to the Applicant duly rounded off to 50% wef 01.04.2022. The arrears shall be paid within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order, failing which, the arrears shall carry interest at 6% per annum till the date of actual payment.

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

10. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-