Ex Sep Pema Ram vs UOI & Others on 4 September 2025

O R D E R

04.09.2025

MA No 61/2024

1. MA No 61/2024 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 43/2024

2. 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 along with Rounding Off benefits and that the arrears be paid along with interest @ 18% per annum and cost of litigation. In alternative, Respondents may be directed to arrange a Re-Assessment Medical Board of the Applicant to ascertain present medical condition of the Applicant.

3. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Army on 16.09.1965. During annual training camp, the Applicant sustained grenade blast injury “Compound Fracture Proximal Phalanx (Rt) Thumb and Middle Phalanx (Rt) Ring Finger and Multiple Laceration Mallet Finger (Rt) Little Finger” which was considered as Attributable to Military Service and the Applicant was placed in permanent low medical category. On completion of terms of engagement, the Applicant was discharged from Service on 30.09.1980 for which he has been granted Service Pension for life. At the time of discharge, the duly constituted Release Medical Board assessed his Disability @ 30% for two years and considered it as Attributable to Military Service. Accordingly, the Applicant was granted Disability Pension for two years and the subsequent RSMB again assessed his disability @ 30% for two years and the Applicant was granted Disability Pension for a further period of two years. After that, the Applicant was not called for RSMB and his disability element of disability pension was discontinued. The Applicant made several representations for grant of disability pension but the respondents paid no heed. The Applicant sought copies of RSMB through RTI and he came to know that his disability was assessed @ 20% for life but the disability element of disability pension was granted till 28.02.1994 only. The Applicant issued Legal Notice dt 15.12.2017 to the Respondents for grant of Disability Pension but the same was rejected vide their Order dt 16.01.2018. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed present OA.

4. The Respondents filed a detailed reply to the Application and while not disputing the basic facts presented by the Applicant, they have submitted that RSMB held at MH Jodhpur on 01.03.1984 assessed his disability @ 20% permanent wef 20.04.1984 but the MA (P) at PCDA (P) assessed the same @ 20% for ten years from 20.04.1984 to 28.02.1994. After ten years, the Applicant was called to appear before the RSMB vide letters dt 17.11.1993 and 24.12.1993 but he did not appear before the RSMB. The same was also communicated to Zila Sainik Board, Nagaur (Rajasthan) under intimation to the Applicant vide letter dt 28.06.1994 but the Applicant did not appear before the RSMB. Therefore, Disability Element of Disability Pension of the Applicant was discontinued wef 01.03.1994. In view of the aforesaid averments, the Respondents have reiterated that since the Applicant did not appear before the

RSMB, his disability element of disability pension was rightly discontinued by the Respondents. The OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

5. During the course of arguments, Learned Counsel for the Applicant placed reliance on Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh judgment dt 27.09.2014 in CWP No 18553/2021 in the case of Kewal Singh Vs UOI & Ors and submitted that his case be decided in the light of aforesaid judgment. Learned Counsel for the Respondents raised no objection, if the case is decided in light of aforesaid judgment.

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 Disability of the Applicant was assessed by RSMB @ 20% for life wef 20.04.1984, but the MA (P) at PCDA (P) re-assessed his disability @ 20% for ten years and granted him disability element of disability pension from 20.04.1984 to 28.02.1994 only. 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. However, after expiry of ten years, the Applicant was called to appear before the RSMB to assess his medical condition for continuation of disability element of disability pension vide letters dt 17.11.1993 and 24.12.1993 but he did not appear before the RSMB. The same was also communicated to Zila Sainik Board, Nagaur (Rajasthan) under intimation to the Applicant vide letter dt 28.06.1994 but the Applicant did not appear before the RSMB. Therefore, Disability Element of Disability Pension of the Applicant was discontinued wef 01.03.1994. The Applicant was well aware that non-appearance before the RSMB would lead to discontinuation of disability element of disability pension. The Applicant himself was at fault for not attending a duly constituted RAMB which resulted in discontinuation of the disability element as per the rules in vogue. However, since the Disability of the Applicant was assessed @ 20% permanent by the RSMB held on 01.03.1984, the Applicant is eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension for life wef 20.04.1984. However, keeping in view the fact that the Applicant has filed this OA after a delay of more than 29 years, the Applicant is eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension three years prior to the date of filing the OA on 25.01.2024 in the light of principles settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarsem Singh, 2008 (8), SCC 648.

10. The judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court relied upon by the Applicant in the case of Kewal Singh (Supra) is distinguishable and not related to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the case of Kewal Singh (Supra), the Applicant did not avail his remedy due to completely untruthful and mis-communication on the part of the Respondents and the falsity got unmasked when the petitioner sought the information under Right to Information Act and immediately on getting the factual details, he approached the Court for grant of relief. Whereas, in the present case, the Applicant was called upon by the Respondents to appear before the RSMB to assess his medical condition for continuation of disability element of disability pension, but he did not appear before the RSMB and after a delay of more than 29 years, he filed present OA for the aforesaid relief.

11. In-fine, the OA is partly allowed. The Respondents are directed to grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension to the Applicant duly Rounded Off to 50% for life from 25.01.2021, ie., three years prior to the date of filing the OA. The arrears of pension shall be paid within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy this Order, failing which, the arrears shall carry interest at 6% per annum till the date of actual payment.

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

13. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-