Armed Forces Tribunal
Sandeep Kumar vs Union of India on 30 October 2026
ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH CHANDIGARH
AT CHANDIMANDIR
-.-
OA 623 of 2025
Friday, the 30th day of Oct, 2026
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE AIR MARSHAL MANAVENDRA SINGH, MEMBER (A)
Sandeep Kumar
…… Applicant
(By Rajesh Sehgal, Advocate)
Versus
Union of India and others
…… Respondents
(By Ajay Sipahiya, Sr. PC through VC)
-.-
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
The applicant enrolled in the Indian Army on 23.06.2005. He served in the Infantry till he was discharged on completion of terms of engagement on 30.06.2022. Total service rendered by him was 17 years and 08 days. At the time of discharge, he was in a permanent low medical category on account of disability of ‘Seizure Disorder’, the extent of which was assessed to be 15% for life but neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Accordingly, claim for grant of disability element was rejected.
2. Aggrieved with the rejection, the applicant preferred O.A. No. 1774 of 2022. The same was disposed of vide order dated 11.10.2023 by directing the respondents to constitute a Re-Survey Medical Board (RSMB) within a period of three months from the date of the order. Based on the findings thereof case of the applicant was to be processed. Such an order was passed because learned counsel for the applicant had made a prayer only for the same even though the claim in the Original Application was for grant of disability element.
OA 623 of 2025 Sandeep Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors. …2/-
3. The RSMB was conducted on 05.03.2024. It assessed the extent of disability to be 05% for life from the date of the Board. For the interregnum, the disability was assessed to be 15%.
4. The case of the applicant was re-processed. Vide order dated 08.08.2025, it was rejected because the extent of disability was below 20% and the judgment dated 25.06.2014 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5605 of 2010 titled as Sukhwinder Singh versus Union of India and others, was not applicable. This order is under challenge in the present case.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that for returning the finding of extent of disability, the Medical Board applied Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pensions), 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘GMO 2023’). The same was illegal because the applicant had been discharged on 30.06.2022, before GMO 2023 was made applicable. GMO 2023 was made applicable w.e.f. 21.09.2023. The case of the applicant should have been examined under Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pensions), 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘GMO 2008’).
6. The submission cannot be accepted because it is illogical. Though the applicant was discharged on 30.06.2022, RSMB was conducted on 05.03.2024 pursuant to order dated 11.10.2023 passed in OA No. 1774 of 2022. The Guide to Medical Officers changes with passage of time depending upon the latest medical research. The RSMB had been tasked to assess the extent of disability as on date of conduct thereof. Thus, it had to take into consideration the latest guide available as the same was based upon latest medical literature and research. The submission may have had some
OA 623 of 2025 Sandeep Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors. …2/- merit, had the applicant been put through an RMB, however, the situation is hypothetical.
7. The learned counsel for the applicant has failed to show that the finding regarding extent of disability is erroneous after application of GMO 2023.
8. It has next been contended that the RSMB did not examine the attributability/ aggravation of the disability. Though, it was justified in not doing so, the applicant has a right to challenge the finding of neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service returned by the RMB. The RMB could not have assessed the disability as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service in view of judgment dated 02.07.2013 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No.4949 of 2013 [arising out of SLP (C) No.6940 of 2010], Dharamvir Singh Vs. Union of India and Others.
9. The argument cannot be accepted because it will not make any difference to the case of the applicant. Even if the disability is accepted to be attributable to military service, the applicant will not get any benefit as the extent of disability is less than 20%.
10. In view of the above, the Original Application lacks merits and is dismissed.
(Air Marshal Manavendra Singh)
(Justice Sudhir Mittal) Member (A)
Member (J)
30th Oct, 2026 ‘b’ REPORTABLE : YES