Ex Hav Jai Ram vs UOI & Others on 25 November 2025

O R D E R

25.11.2025

MA No 45/2024

1. MA No 45/2024 has been filed by the Applicant for hearing the case at Regional Bench, Jaipur. Having considered the reasons and grounds stated in the Application, MA 45/2024 is allowed.

MA No 44/2024

2. MA No 44/2024 has been filed by the Applicant for condonation of delay in filing the OA. Having considered the reasons and grounds stated in the MA and also the fact that the pension is a recurring cause of action, the delay in filing the OA is condoned to examine the prayer on merits.

OA No 32/2024

3. 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 Pension for life wef 01.10.1990 along with Rounding Off benefits to 50% wef 01.01.1996 and that the arrears be paid along with interest @ 18% per annum.

4. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Army on 02.06.1971 and was discharged from service wef 22.10.1988 on medical grounds due to disabilities “Traumatic Amputation of (Rt) Index Finger” and “ASOM (Rt) Ear” and was granted Disability initially for a period of two years from 22.10.1988 to 31.09.1990. Thereafter, his disability was re-assessed below 20% in the subsequent Re- Survey Medical Boards and Disability Element of Disability Pension was discontinued wef 01.10.1990. 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 submits that he was invalided out of service due to disability assessed while in service and the same was considered as Attributable to Military Service, therefore, he is entitled for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension, even if the disability is assessed below 20% subsequently. The Applicant issued Legal Notice as also made representations for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension from the date of discontinuation, but to no avail. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed present OA.

5. The Respondents filed a detailed reply to the Application and while not disputing the basic facts presented by the Applicant, they have submitted that the disability of the Applicant was considered as Attributable to Military Service and based on the opinion of Release Medical Board, the Applicant was initially granted Disability Element of Disability Pension for a period of two years from 22.10.1988 to 21.09.1990. Thereafter, Re-Survey Medical Board (RSMB) held on 03.07.1990 assessed his disability @ 20% for life but the MA (P) at PCDA (P) re- assessed the same below 20% for ten years and discontinued disability element of disability pension wef 22.09.1990. Subsequent RSMB held on 08.03.2001 assessed his disability @ 15-19% for life but the MA (P) at PCDA (P) reassessed the same below 20% for five years. Final RSMB held on 01.03.2008 assessed his disability below 20% for life. Since, the disability of the Applicant was assessed below 20% by MA (P) at PCDA (P), therefore, the Applicant is not eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension wef 22.09.1990 in terms of Rule 186 (2) of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-1). In view of the aforesaid averments, the Respondents have reiterated that the OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

6. We have heard Learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed before us. Now the question arises, as to whether MA (P) at PCDA (P) can overrule the opinion of Medical boards.

7. On the question 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.”

8. 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”.

9. In the present case, the Applicant was discharged from Service on medical grounds before fulfilling the terms of engagement in the rank of Havildar and has been granted Disability Element of Disability Pension initially for a period of two years till 21.09.1990. 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 re-assessing the Disability of the Applicant for ten years. Further, assessment of his Disability below 20% by the Re-Survey Medical Board held on 08.03.2001 has no locus standi when the RSMB held on 03.07.1990 assessed disability @ 20% for life. Therefore, the Applicant is clearly entitled for Disability Element of Pension from the date of discontinuation, ie, wef 22.09.1990, duly Rounded Off to 50% wef 01.01.1996. However, since the OA has been filed after a long delay of more than 32 years, the arrears shall be restricted to three years prior to the date of filing the OA on 20.10.2023 in the light of principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI & Ors Vs Tarsem Singh, 2008 (8) SCC 648.

10. In-fine, the Respondents are directed to grant Disability Element of Pension to the Applicant duly rounded off to 50% wef 20.10.2020, ie, three years prior to the date of filing the OA on 20.10.2023. The arrears of Disability Element of Disability Pension shall be paid within 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.

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

12. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-