Armed Forces Tribunal
Narmail Singh vs Union of India on 22 October 2026
ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCHCHANDIGARH
AT CHANDIMANDIR
-.-
MA 86 of 2020 in OA 86 of 2020
Thursday, the 22ndday of Oct, 2026
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE LT GEN (DR) RANBIR SINGH, MEMBER (A)
Narmail Singh
…… Applicant
(By RN Ojha, Advocate)
Versus
Union of India and others
…… Respondents
(By Varsha Gahlawat, Sr PC)
-.-
ORDER
JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL, MEMBER (J)
The applicant was invalided from service on 18.04.1989. He had served for 07 years and 129 days only. Invalidement was on account of disability of ‘Schizophrenia’, the extent of which was assessed to be 40% for two years and aggravated by military service. Claim for grant of disability pension was, however, rejected by the office of Chief CDA (P) vide its letter dated 16.05.1990 by declaring the disability to be neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Thus, the present Original Application has been filed.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon judgment dated 14.01.1993 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in CA No. 164 of 1993 Ex- Sapper Mohinder Singh V/s Union of India and Others and has submitted that the Administrative Authority had no right to interfere with the finding of a duly constituted invaliding Medical Board. Thus, letter dated 16.05.1990 as well as that dated 25.09.1990 issued by the Record Office to the applicant deserves to be quashed.
Page 1 of 2
OA 86 of 2020Narmail Singh vs UOI and Ors ...2
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to distinguish this case from Ex-Sapper Mohinder Singh (supra). She has only submitted that Invaliding Medical Board has held that disability was ‘constitutional in nature’ and the applicant has challenged the order of rejection after 36 years.
4. Even if the Invaliding Medical Board holds that a disability is ‘constitutional in nature’, no benefit can be drawn from the same because over all the finding by the said board is that disability was aggravated by military service. Being a pensionary case, delay in approaching the court for relief cannot come in the way of the claimant. This proposition of low stands settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents are rejected.
5. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed. The applicant is held entitled to disability pension for disability of Schizophrenia @ 40% for two years w.e.f. 19.04.1989. Corrigendum Pension Payment Order be issued within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by learned counsel for the respondents/OIC, Legal Cell. Arrears be also released within the same period failing which they shall become payable with interest @ 6% per annum.
6. The respondents are also directed to carry out a Re-assessment Medical Board within aforementioned period of three months, the finding of which will govern the future course of action.
OA 86 of 2020 Narmail Singh vs UOI and Ors ...3
7. Miscellaneous Application also stands disposed of.
(Lt Gen (Dr) Ranbir Singh)
(Justice Sudhir Mittal) Member (A)
Member (J)
22ndOct, 2026 DK
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…