Lt Col Manish Mehta NM (Retd) vs UOI & Others on 15 December 2025

O R D E R

15.12.2025

1. By way of this Application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has prayed for directing the Respondents to grant Disability Element of Disability Pension @ 20% for life.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the Applicant was commissioned in the Army on 06.03.1993 and was discharged from service on 09.03.2018 at his own request for which he has been granted Service Pension for life. While posted in Jammu in year 2017, the Applicant suffered from Disability “Bilateral Sensorineural Hearing Loss” and the same was considered as Aggravated by Military Service by the Re-Categorisation Medical

Boards. At the time of his discharge, the duly constituted Release Medical Board assessed his disability @ 20% for life and considered it as Aggravated by Military Service. The case for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension was processed with the Competent Authority, who did not approve the same without assigning any reasons. 1st and 2nd Appeals preferred by the Applicant also came to be rejected by the Competent Authorities without assigning any reasons and the Appellate Authority re-assessed the disability @ 10% for life, which is illegal, arbitrary and against the opinion of ENT Specialists. The Applicant has placed reliance on Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment dt 14.01.1993 in Civil Appeal No 164/1993 in the case of Ex Sapper Mohinder Singh Vs UOI & Ors and contented that without physically examining the Applicant, the Respondent authorities cannot overrule the opinion of the Release Medical Board and, hence, the Applicant is eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension @ 20% for life from the date of his discharge from Service.

3. 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 Release Medical Board opined the Disability as Aggravated by Military Service but after initial adjudication, Appellate Committee on First Appeals (ACFA) and Second Appellate Committee on Pension (SACP) based on relevant rules/ instructions and administrative/medical provisions conceded the disability as Aggravated by Military Service. However, it was considered that the RMB had over assessed the disablement @ 20% for life. The actual assessment of B/L Sensorineural Hearing Loss (SNHL) with combined CV of 600 cm (normal) should be less than 20% (10%) as per Para 20; Chapter VII., GMO 2002, amendment 2008. As the disablement percentage qualifying for disability pension/element is less than 20%, the Applicant is not eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension. 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 Counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed before us. During the course of hearing, Learned Counsel for the Respondents vehemently argued that the opinion of the RMB was not as per Para 20, Chapter VII, GMO 2002 and the disability was over-assessed @ 20%.

Now the question arises, as to whether administrative authorities can overrule the opinion of Medical boards?

5. 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.”

6. 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”.

7. The sum and substance of the above decision is that no authority which has not personally and physically examined the person cannot overrule the opinion of the Medical Boards which is a body of medical experts and have personally and physically assessed him.

8. In the present case, the duly constituted Release Medical Board assessed his disability @ 20% for life and considered it as Aggravated by Military Service. 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 Administrative Authorities at IHQ of MoD (Army) were not justified in re-assessing the Disability of the Applicant @ 10%. We have also examined the RMB and Para 20 of Chapter VII, GMO 2002 and we do not find any violation of the same by the Release Medical Board. Therefore, the Applicant is entitled for Disability Element of Pension @ 20% for life duly rounded off to 50% from the date of his discharge from Service.

9. In-fine, the Respondents are directed to grant Disability Element of Disability Pension to the Applicant duly rounded off to 50% wef 10.03.2018, ie, from the date of his discharge from Service. 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.

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

11. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-