Ex LD Arvindra Singh vs UOI & Others on 30 October 2025

O R D E R

30.10.2025

1. By way of this Application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has prayed for holding RAMB of the Applicant to assess the present medical condition of the Applicant for the disability “Hypertriglyceridemia” and its attributability/aggravation factors to military service.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Army on 17.09.2002 and after rendering more than 17 years of service, he was discharged from Service on 31.07.2020 at his own request on extreme compassionate grounds. The Applicant has been granted Service Pension for life, however, Disability Element of Disability Pension has not been granted to him. The Applicant submits that before being inducted in Chhattan, North Sikkim (Field/High Altitude Area) in March 2018, the Applicant was examined and found physically and medically fit to be posted to High Altitude Area. While serving in North Sikkim (High Altitude Area), the triglyceride level of the Applicant was shot up abnormally high and the Applicant was diagnosed as “Hypertriglyceridemia” and, consequently, was placed in temporary low medical category (P3) (T-24), wherein the Specialist mentioned that he suffered from the disability in High Altitude Area. However, the Release Medical Board held at the time of discharge of the Applicant from service considered his disability as Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated by Military Service (NANA) with assessment @ 10% for life and, consequently, his disability pension claim was rejected by the Competent Authority. The Applicant has reiterated that he suffered from the disability while posted in High Altitude Area and after discharge from service, despite his regular treatment through ECHS facility, his triglyceride level remains high and the disability has further been aggravated to a great extent. 1st and 2nd Appeals preferred by the Applicant against rejection of Disability Pension claim were also rejected by the Competent Authorities. Thereafter, the Applicant make representation for holding of onetime Re- Assessment Medical Board (RAMB) but the same was also rejected vide impugned Order dt 07.07.2023. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed present OA praying for directing the Respondents for holding of onetime RAMB for assessment of his present medical condition and also to determine its attributability/aggravation factors to military service.

3. The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement andwhile not disputing the basic facts presented by the Applicant, they have submitted that the disability of the Applicant was assessed @ 10% for life and considered it as NANA. Further, 1st and 2nd Appeals preferred by the Applicant have also been rejected by the Competent Authorities. Therefore, the Applicant is not eligible to undergo onetime RAMB in terms of Rule 92 (a) of Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008 (Part-1 & II). Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secy

MOD & Ors Vs Damodaran AV, (2009) 9 SCC 140 has held that the medical board is an expert body and its opinion is entitled to be given due weight, value and credence. In view of the aforesaid averments, the Respondents have reiterated that the OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

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

5. Perusal of Opinion of Graded Specialist (Medicine) of 327 Field Hospital in Part II (Clinical Assessment) of Categorisation Medical Board, reveals that the onset of the disease was in Oct 2018 at Chhattan (North Sikkim). However, in the relevant history of the disease, it is clearly mentioned that“the disability detected during pre-HAA induction medical examination – Asymptomatic”(Annexure A/4). Therefore, the claim of the Applicant that he was physically and medically fit in all respects before being inducted to High Altitude Area is factually not correct. However, perusal of prescription slips of ECHS Polyclinic, Khatipura, Jaipur reveals that the triglyceride level of the Applicant is high and he is taking regular treatment.

6. Taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the Applicant is still suffering from the disability and taking regular treatment through ECHS Polyclinics and the fact that this Tribunal is not an expert medical authority to ignore the opinion of the Release Medical Board, we deem it appropriate to ascertain the present degree of disability “Hypertriglyceridemia”, if any, its probable condition and attributability/aggravation factors to military service. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the applicant be referred to a onetimeRAMB to assess the present medical condition of the Applicant. The Respondents are directed to constitute a onetime RAMB for the said Disability “Hypertriglyceridemia” at the designated Military Hospital for the examination of the Applicant and assess degree of disability and its attributability/aggravation factors within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order and to inform the Applicant the date and venue for his presence. We are of the opinion that RAMB must make re-assessment of the attributability/aggravation afresh at the time of his discharge as after his discharge there were no military service factors contributing to the enhancement of the disability.After assessment of the Applicant for the aforesaid disease “Hypertriglyceridemia”, the Respondents shall consider the case of the Applicant for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension for this Disability or otherwise as per the extant rules/policies in this regard.

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

8. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-