Ex LD Chauhan Keshari Singh vs UOI & Others on 20 November 2025

O R D E R

20.11.2025

1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the applicant has filed this OA praying thataction of the Respondents for denying him the Disability Pension be quashed and set aside being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and further direct the Respondents to grant sanction and release 30% Disability Pension to the Applicant wef 09/8/1990 alongwith rounding off benefits to 50% wef 01/1/1996 for life.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant who was enrolled in the Army on 20/3/1982 in medical category ‘AYE’ was invalided out from service on 08/8/1990 in medical category CEE Permanent after he had rendered eight years, four months and 19 days of service. However, he was not granted disability pension wef 09/8/1990. The applicant had sustained severe injury, “Compound Fracture Dislocation Ankle (Rt) (Optd)” on 03/5/1988 while he was on journey period during his annual leave from 29/4/1988 to 29/6/1988. He booked his personal motor cycle from Ferozepur Railway Station, ie, Unit location and boarded the same train to proceed to his home town, Godhra, Gujarat. At the railway station he had taken out his motor cycle from the Railway station and started journey to his native place, Amareshwar on the motor cycle. However, before reaching the destination, motor cycle slipped and he fell down while passing through a round circle and sustained injury. He was admitted to Military Hospital, Ahmedabad on 04/5/1988 at 1300 hours and because of the injury he was placed in low medical category wef 27/2/1990. Since he was placed in low medical category, his retention was not recommended and the applicant was discharged from service on 08/8/1990 despite the applicant having pleaded for his retention in service in his reply to the show cause notice. The RMB assessed the disability of the applicant @30% for two years and considered it as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Disability pension claim of the applicant was rejected vide letter dated 28/11/1990 on the ground that the disability which the applicant suffered during his service in the Army on which his claim is based, is not attributable to nor aggravated by military service. However, despite concerted effort made by him, the applicant was not granted disability pension. Having been aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA, praying for relief.

3. The Respondents have filed a Reply Statement. While not disputing the basic facts, the Respondents have submitted that the applicant was downgraded to low medical category due to the disability, ”Compound Potts Fracture (Rt)” wef 25/1/1989. Since suitable alternative appointment commensurate with his disability was not available in terms of Army Order 46/80 andhis retention in service was not justified in public interest and no shelter appointment was available in the Unit, a show cause notice was issuedand in response to it, the Applicant vide his reply dated 19/6/1990 stated that his ailment has been a hindrance in performing his duties and he would like to discontinue his service. Thus, the applicant was discharged from service on 08/8/1990 under Rule 13 (3) Item III (v) of Army Rule 1954 on medical grounds. He had rendered eight years, four months and 18 days of qualifying service. He was granted Invalid Gratuity of Rs 9095/- and DCRG of Rs 7223/-. Under the provisions of Army Order 3/89, the Invaliding Medical Board of the Applicant was held on 05/7/1990, wherein the disability of the applicant, “Compound Fracture Dislocation Ankle (Rt)” was assessed @30% for two years and considered it as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. The disability element of disability pension claim of the applicant was rejected vide PCDA (P) letter dated 28/11/1990, which was communicated to the applicant vide letter dated 22/12/1990, with an advice to the applicant to prefer an appeal, if so desired, within a period of six months. After a lapse of more than 31 years, the applicant submitted his time barred First Appeal dated 27/5/2022 for grant of disability pension, which was suitably replied to vide Record Office letter dated 25/6/2022. The Second Appeal dated 20/7/2022 preferred by the applicant, received through his Counsel was also replied to. The Respondents further submit that the applicant is not eligible for grant of disability element of disability pension in terms of Para 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961, Part I, as the applicant sustained injury during his Annual Leave. With regard to the assessment of disability of the applicant, the Respondents have submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in its Judgment dated 20/8/2009 in Civil Appeal No 5678 of 2009, arising out of SLP No 23727 of 2008, in the case of

Damodaran AV Vs UOI &Ors, has viewed that the Medical Board is an expert body and its opinion is entitled to be given due weight, value and credence. Taking into consideration the ibid judgment, the applicant was not granted disability element of disability pension as his disability was considered as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.

4. During the course of final hearing, Counsel for the Applicant fervently submitted that the applicant sustained injury while he was on journey period which was considered as duty and, hence, there is a causal connection between the injury sustained by the applicant and the military service, making him eligible for grant of disability pension.

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

6. Having heard and perused the material placed on record, it is apparent that the applicant himself had stated that he was on Annual Leave wef 29/4/1988 to 29/6/1988. He sustained injury on 04/5/1988 at around 1300 hours while riding on his motor cycle from Godhra Railway Station, which was his Nearest Railway Station (NRS) to his home town, Amareshwar, when the motor cycle which he was riding slipped and he fell down. He was downgraded to low medical category due to the injury wef25/01/1989. Retention of the applicant in service was not considered in organizational interest as no shelter appointment commensurate with his disability was available in the Regiment, necessitating issuing a Show Cause Notice to the applicant, as to why he should not be discharged from service being placed in Permanent low medical category. In reply to the show cause notice the applicant, stated that his ailment has become a hindrance in performing his duty and he would like to discontinue his service. Accordingly, Record Office issued Release Order of the applicant vide letter dated 05/6/1990. Eventually, the applicant was discharged from service wef 08/8/1990 under Rule 13 (3) Item III (v) of Army Rules, 1954 on medical grounds. The IMB assessed the disability of the applicant, “Compound Fracture Dislocation Ankle (Rt)” @30% for two years and considered it as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. He had rendered eight years, four months and 18 days of service, for which he was granted Invalid Gratuity as admissible under the Rules. As regards contention of the applicant that he was going to his home town on leave, it has been observed that the accident happened five days after his leave period started. Thus, it is clear that he was not on duty during leave period. Moreover, the Applicant has not substantiated his claim by way of any evidence. Thus it cannot be accepted.

7. The question on attributability or aggravation, where the disability or fatality occurs when the individual is 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 &OrsVs 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. With regard to grant Disability Pension, Para 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961, Part I, reads as follows :- “Primary conditions for the grant of disability Pension.

173. Unless otherwise specifically provided a disability pension consisting of service element and disability element may be granted to an individual who is invalided out of service on account of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service in non-battle casualty and is assessed at 20 per cent or over”.

12. With regard to grant of service pension, Para 132 of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961, Part I, reads as follows ;- “Minimum Qualifying Service for Pension.

132. The minimum period of qualifying service (without weightage) actually rendered and required for earning service pension shall be 15 years”.

13. 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. Since the applicant had rendered a little over eight years service only, he is also not eligible for grant of Service Pension in terms of extant regulations.

14. Apart from the above, we also feel that the Application stands barred by inordinate delayand latches with no cogent reason for the inexplicable delay of more than three decades and it does not deserve to be entertained. 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 was held that a stale claim cannot be revived for grant of Pensionary benefits. The case is also covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs Rajwanti, Civil Appeal No 583-584 of 2017, decided on 16/1/2017.

15. In fine, we are of the considered view that we find no merit in any of the pleas of the Applicant and the OA is accordingly dismissed.

16. No order on Costs.

17. Pending application, if any, also stand disposed off.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

cda/-