Sukhdev Singh vs Union of India on 3 November 2026

ORDER

By means of the OA, filed under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the applicant has prayed for a direction to the respondents to release service element of pension to the applicant with effect from 01.07.2011.

2. Brief facts of the case are that No. 3982439F, Ex L/Nk Sukhdev Singh was initially enrolled in the Army on 26.11.1980 and discharged on 30.11.1997. Thereafter, he was enrolled in DSC service on 20.06.2001. During the initial term of engagement, the individual was downgraded to Low Medical Category P2 (Permanent) for diagnosis ‘ESSENTIAL HYPERTENSION’ w.e.f. 22.01.2003, 11.02.2005, 11.02.2007 and 11.02.2009. Accordingly, he was discharged from DSC service w.e.f. 30.06.2011 under Army Rule 13 (3) item III(i) of Army Rule 1954 after rendering 10 years and 11 days’ service. Before discharge, he was brought before a duly constituted Release Medical Board which assessed his

disability ‘PRIMARY HYPERTENSION’ as aggravated by Military service @ 30% for life and ‘TYPE - II DIABETES MELLITUS’ disability, which was assessed as neither attributable to nor aggravated by service @ 20% for life. He was granted 30% disability element for the disability ‘PRIMARY DISABILITY’ which was assessed as aggravated by Military service for life with effect from 01.07.2011 and was not given service element of disability pension. As the applicant was neither given extension in the service nor service element of the Disability Pension, hence, this OA.

3. The respondents in their written statement and also during the course of arguments have not disputed the service particulars of the applicant and have only averred that the applicant was granted disability element of Disability Pension @ 30% for life for the disability ‘PRIMARY DISABILITY’ which was aggravated by Military service and was also paid Service Gratuity amounting to Rs. 1,74,860/- and Death cum-Retirement Gratuity amounting to Rs. 87,430/- for the service rendered in DSC. Being placed in Low Medical Category, he was not granted extension beyond the period of initial engagement. The respondents, in support of their case have relied upon judgement dated 10.10.2010 of Hon’ble Supreme Court, passed in Civil Appeal No. 4486 of 2002, titled as Bhola Singh vs. UOI & Ors. against the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court vide order dated 10.08.2010 (Annexure R-1) vide which Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “appellant is not entitled to service element of pension because he has admittedly not put in 15 years of service. This appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.” The respondents have also relied upon Hon’ble AFT, Regional Bench Kochi order dated 23.02.2017 in the case titled ‘Joseph PB vs. UOI & Ors.’ and Hon’ble AFT, Regional Bench, Lucknow judgement dated 18.05.2018, titled ‘UOI & Ors vs. Nagendra Prasad Singh in MA No. 1195 of 2018 in OA No. 682 of 2017’ to support their case.

4. Heard the arguments and perused the records.

5. The short question for determination is whether the applicant, who has been granted the disability element of disability pension, is also entitled to the service element thereof.

6. Disability pension under the Pension Regulations for the Army comprises two components, namely, the service element and the disability element. The service element is the counterpart of service pension and is admissible to an individual who has rendered the minimum qualifying service for service pension. The disability element is admissible where the disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service and is assessed at 20% or more.

7. The service particulars of the applicant are not disputed by the respondents. The applicant was enrolled in the Army on 26.11.1980 and was discharged on 30.11.1997. He was re-enrolled in DSC on 20.06.2001 and remained in service till 30.06.2011 and remained there for 10 years and 11 days. He was released from DSC because he was placed in Low Medical Category, on account of a disability which the Release Medical Board itself found it to be aggravated by military service @ 30% for life. The respondents have themselves accepted this by granting him the disability element with effect from 01.07.2011.

8. The respondents have relied upon Bhola Singh (supra), but that judgment turns on its own facts. The appellant there had admittedly not put in 15 years of service, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on that footing. In the present case the applicant, taking his entire military service into account, has completed more than the qualifying service, and the respondents have not placed on record any material showing that the earlier service stood forfeited or was already reckoned for any other pensionary benefit in such a manner as to prevent it from being counted. The orders of the Regional Benches at Kochi in Joseph PB (supra) and at Lucknow in Nagendra Prasad Singh (supra), as relied upon by the respondents, do not advance the case of the respondents on the facts of the present case.

9. The applicant was released from DSC on account of Low Medical Category, he developed in service, and not because he chose to leave. It would be inequitable to deny the service element to an individual whose disability has been accepted as aggravated by service, merely because of non-grant of extension owing to disability which was already conceded by service as aggravated by service and further to the fact that the condition of more than 10 years of service for grant of disability pension to the personnel who were invalidated out due to disability has already been done away.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon judgment dated 20.08.2024 passed by Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.19118 of 2024 (O&M) Union of India & Others V/s Daulat Ram to submit that the applicant is entitled to grant of service element in addition to disability element. This was because by virtue of Regulation 197 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 where under a soldier discharged on completion of terms of engagement or superannuation and in a low medical category is deemed to have been invalided and entitled to grant of disability pension.

11. Perusal of the judgment of Daulat Ram (supra) leaves no doubt that a soldier in a Permanent Low Medical Category, discharged either on completion of terms of engagement or superannuation is deemed to have been invalided from service. Regulation 179 of the Pension Regulations for the Army,1961, is thus attracted. Such a soldier is entitled to grant of disability pension. Disability pension consists of ‘disability element’ as well as ‘service element’. Thus, denial of the service element is illegal.

ORDER

12. In view of the foregoing, the OA is allowed and the respondents are directed to grant the service element of disability pension to the applicant with effect from 01.07.2011, in addition to the disability element of 30% for life already granted along with interest @ 6% per annum and to issue the necessary corrigendum PPO within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by learned counsel for the respondents/OIC, Legal Cell. In case of delay, the amount due shall carry interest @ 8% per annum for the period of delay.

13. No order as to costs.

(Air Marshal Manavendra Singh)

(Justice Umesh Chandra Sharma) Member (A)

Member (J) Tuesday 03rd Nov., 2026 sp’