Ex Hav Dhokal Singh vs UOI & Others on 17 October 2025

O R D E R

17/10/2025

1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA praying for quashing and setting aside the action of the Respondents being illegal, unjust and unconstitutional and against Article 14 of the Constitution and that the Respondents be directed to determine, sanction and release Disability Element of Disability Pension @60% to the Applicant wef 25/11/1992 alongwith its rounding off benefits to 75% wef 01/1/1996 for life.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the Army 16/8/1972 in medical category ‘AYE’ and was Invalided out from service in medical category “EEE” on 24/11/1992 under rule 13 (3) item III (iii) before completion of his terms of engagement. He had rendered 20 years, three months and nine days of service and was discharged in the rank of Havildar. He was granted service pension for lifefor the rank of Havildar Group ‘D’ for his qualifying service of 20 years, three months and nine days, which has been revised from time to time. While serving with 8 RAJPUTANA RIFLES, the applicant had suffered the disability, “Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus” in November 1988 and was treated at 155 Base Hospital and subsequently he was placed in low medical category ‘EEE’ and was invalided out from service with the same disability having been assessed @60% for two years and considered it as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, Annexure A/4. Therefore, the applicant was not granted disability element of disability pension, which was communicated to the applicant also vide Records Office letter dated 14/10/1993. But the applicant being an illiterate person, belonging to a rural area and lack ofknowledge, he did not prefer any appeal as advised vide the ibid letter. However, the entitlement of getting disability element came to the knowledge of the applicant based on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and a Legal Notice dated 20/9/2023 was served upon the Respondents for grant of the same to the applicant wef 25/11/1992 alongwith its rounding off benefits to 75% wef 01/1/1996, Annexure A/6, but to no avail. In support of his arguments, the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dharamvir Singh Vs UOI &Ors, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 316 as also in the case of UOI &Ors Vs Rajbir Singh in JT 2015 (2) SC 392. The applicant further submits that the case of the applicant is squarely covered by the Order dated 31/5/2022 passed by the Circuit Bench of this Tribunal in OA No 1042/2012 in the case of Ex Sub Nawal Singh Vs UOI &Ors, Annexure A/7. Having been aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA, praying for relief.

3. The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement. While not disputing the basic facts, they have submitted that the applicant was invalided out from service on 24/11/1992 due to the disability, “Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus” under the provisions of Item 13 (3) (iii) of Army Rules, 1954. He had rendered 20 years, three months and nine days of service and was granted service pension for life, Annexure

R/1. As per records held with the Record Office, the applicant was downgraded to Low Medical Category (LMC) CEE (T) for the disability, “Diabetes Mellitus” wef 08/2/1989 and subsequently downgraded to LMC CEE (P) with 05/7/1990. The duly constituted IMB held on 27/10/1992 assessed the disability of the applicant, “Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus” @60% for two years and considered it as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service as also not connected with military service, Annexure R/2. Disability Pension claim of the applicant was rejected by the PCDA (P) vide their letter dated 08/10/1993, whichwas communicated to the applicant vide letter dated 06/10/1993 with an advice to the applicant to prefer an Appeal, within a period of six months, if so desired. Thereafter, application submitted in the years 2021 and in 2023 under RTI Act, 2005 seeking copy of the IMB proceedings followed by legal notice dated 20/9/2023 for grant of disability element of disability pension were all replied to by the Respondents. The Respondents further submit that since the disability of the applicant is considered as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service as also not connected with service, he is not eligible for grant of disability element under the provisions of Rule 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961, Part I. Also, the OA has been filed after an inordinate delaywithout any justifiable reasons for the delay and, hence, the OA is barred by limitation and, therefore, the Applicant has no right to agitate the cause of action after such delay.

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

5. Based on the submission made by the Counsel for the applicant during the final hearing held on 26/9/2025, post hearing of the case, he has placed on record a copy of the Judgment dated 24/2/2015 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI &Ors Vs Angad Singh Titaria, in Civil Appeal No 11208 of 2011.

6. It is evident from the record that the applicant was invalided out from service on 24/11/1992 due to the disability, “Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus” under the provisions of Rule 13 (3) (iii) of Army Rules, 1954. Contrary to the statement of the

Respondents, copy of the discharge book of the applicant, annexed at Annexure A/2 of the OA, states that the applicant was invalided out from service under the provisions of Rule 13 III (v) of the Army Rules. He had rendered 20 years, three months and nine days of service for which he was granted Service Pension for life. The duly constituted IMB held on 27/10/1992, assessed the disability of the Applicant, “Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus” @60% for two years and considered it as Neither Attributable to nor Aggravated by Military Service as also not connected with Military Service as the disability has been considered as constitutional in origin.

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'.

(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 :- “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 IMB. 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. Further, in the judgment dated 20/8/2009 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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, 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. It was also stated that the judicial authority cannot overturn the opinion of the medical experts as there is no wherewithal with such authorities to express an opinion on the assessment of IMB/RMB. The relevant observations of each of the Hon'ble Judges in the ibid Order are being reproduced as follows :- “Hon'ble Dalveer Bhandari, J., speaking for the Bench, observed as follows: “17. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I am of the considered view that the Medical Board is an expert body and its opinion is entitled to be given due weight, value and credence. In the nstant case, the Medical Board has clearly opined that the disability of late Shri A.V.Damodaran was neither attributable nor aggravated by the military service. In my considered view, both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court have not considered this case in proper prospective and in the light of the judgments of this Court. The legal representatives of A.V.Damodaran are not entitled to the disability pension.” Hon'ble Dr. M.K.Sharma, J., in His Lordship's concurring judgment, has observed as follows: “30. When an individual is found suffering from any disease or has sustained injury, he is examined by the medical OA No.130/2010, 100/2011 and 109/2012: - 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 medical 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.

31. 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, draw 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.

32. 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 view of the disease being capable of being improved.

33. All the aforesaid aspects are recorded and recommended in the form of AFMSF-

16. The Invalidating Medical Board forms its opinion/recommendation 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.

34. The aforesaid provisions came to be interpreted by the various decisions rendered by this Court in which it has been 15 OA No.130/2010, 100/2011 and 109/2012: - consistently held that the opinion given by the doctors or the medical board shall be given weightage and primacy in the matter 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” Apart from making the aforesaid observations in A.V.Damodaran (supra), the Apex Court examined the question as to what type of disease is Schizophrenia and answered in para 22 as follows: “Schizophrenia is a term used to describe a mental disorder characterised by abnormalities in the perception or expression of reality, which is most commonly manifested as auditory hallucinations, bizarre delusions, or disorganised speech and thinking with significant social or occupational dysfunction. The medical studies have opined that there is no known single cause responsible for schizophrenia. However, they have pointed towards likelihood of genetic, behavioural and environmental factors playing a role in the development of this mental health condition.” The Apex Court further found that late A.V.Damodaran was posted at Allahabad which was neither a sensitive, border area nor a difficult terrain or high altitude region. More so, he was not posted at an isolated location and had access to the society there. On the basis of such conditions of service, the Apex Court found that Schizophrenia was neither attributable to nor aggravated by nor connected with the military service and accordingly. In the present appeal, the record reveals that in the opinion of the Medical Board, no physical contributory factor was elicited for the psychotic breakdown of the respondent. Thus, the condition of military service cannot be said to have triggered the onset of the Schizophrenia in the respondent. However, the possibility of the development of Schizophrenia in the respondent as a result of family stress and pressure, (which is regarded as a factor triggering the onset of this mental condition in some individuals), cannot be ruled out totally. 17 On the basis of the aforesaid observations and facts and circumstances of the case, the Apex Court held that the respondent therein was not entitled to claim for disability pension as the Medical Board had ruled out the possibility of the disease Schizophrenia being attributable to or aggravated by the military service and accordingly relied upon the medical opinion.

11. In Union of India vs. Jujhar Singh, the Apex Court reiterated the aforesaid principles and propounded mainly two principles, in para 22, as follows: firstly, “... ... ..... a personnel can be granted disability pension only if he is found suffering from disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service and recorded by Service Medical Authorities” In para 23 of the judgment, the Apex Court considered the relevancy of the finding on the nexus between the act resulting in the injury/disease and the normal expected standard of duties and way of life expected from a member of the Armed Forces and held as follows: “...The member of the armed forces who is claiming disability pension must be able to show a normal nexus between the act, omission or commission resulting in an injury to the person and the normal expected standard of duties and way of life expected from a member of such force”.

13. Also, this Tribunal in its Order dated 02/5/2025 in OA No 325/2021 in the case of Ex NC (E) Rati Ram Gurjar Vs UOI &Ors, held that the specific opinion rendered by RMB/IMB is sacrosanct and cannot be tampered with by non medical experts.

14. While we take cognisance of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court placed on record by the Counsel for the Applicant in support of his arguments for grant of disability element of disability pension to the applicant, the Hon’ble Apex Court in its later and a landmark judgment dated 20/9/2019 in the case of The Secretary, Government of India & Others Vs Dharambir Singh in Civil Appeal No 4981/2012, unequivocally held the view that “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”. In the instant case, the disability of the applicant, “Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus”, was considered as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service by the duly constituted IMB as also not connected with military service being constitutional in origin. The unequivocal opinion of the IMB categorising the disability of the Applicant as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service (NANA), hence, cannot be ignored or over-ruled as it has to be given due weight and credence in terms of Hon’ble Apex Court Judgments (supra).

15. Apart from the above, we also find that the Application stands barred by inordinate delay and laches of more than three decades with no cogent reason for the inexplicable delay and it does not deserve to be entertained. For this reason, the Application by the Applicant is totally misconceived. 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 instant case cannot be entertained. 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.

16. In fine, we are of the considered view that we find no merit in any of the pleas of the Applicant. e

17. The OA is dismissed. No order on Costs.

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

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

cda/-