Bombay High Court
UNION OF INDIAversusCOL RONNY DVANIA (RETD)
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The High Court held that the Tribunal’s awards of disability pension based on a duly reasoned Medical Board opinion are final and not subject to reversal, and therefore dismissed the writ petitions.
Summary
A batch of writ petitions filed by the Union of India challenged several Armed Forces Tribunal orders that granted disability pensions to retired army and navy personnel. The petitioners argued that the Medical Board’s opinion that a disease was a constitutional disorder and not attributable or aggravated by service should be conclusive and that the Tribunal could not interfere. The Court examined the statutory framework under the Pension Entitlement Rules‑2008, Army and Navy pension regulations, and relevant Supreme Court precedents. It held that the Medical Board’s reasoned opinion is final for purposes of attributability/aggravation and that the Tribunal’s decisions were not perverse or based on irrelevant material. Consequently, the High Court dismissed all the writ petitions and vacated the interim orders previously granted.
Issues considered
- The extent to which a Medical Board’s opinion on attributability or aggravation of a disease is binding on the Armed Forces Tribunal and the High Court.
- Whether the Pension Entitlement Rules‑2008 impose a condition precedent of service‑related causation that can be interpreted liberally in favour of the claimant.
- Whether the Union of India bears the onus of proving non‑attributability of a disability when the claimant alleges service‑related disease.
- Whether the High Court may interfere with the Tribunal’s award of disability pension on the ground of procedural or substantive errors.
- Whether the interim orders dated 15 February 2024 should remain in force.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Subjects
- disability pension
- medical board
- attributability
- aggravation
- Armed Forces Tribunal
- Pension Entitlement Rules 2008
- Article 226
- military service conditions
- high court writ petition
- service‑related disease
Judgment
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1994 OF 2024
Union of India ..Petitioner
Versus
Lt. Col. S.K. Rathore Deceased,
through his widow Collen. Rathore ..Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2017 OF 2024
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Colonel B. K. George (Retd.) .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2021 OF 2024
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Colonel Brahmarshi Vandey (Retd.) .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2020 OF 2024
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Colonel Madhusudan Dave (Retd.) .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2022 OF 2024
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Colonel A. K. Nath (Retd.) .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2013 OF 2024
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Colonel Jagdish Jaisinghrao
Gadekar (Retd.) .. Respondent
1
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2016 OF 2024
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Colonel Ronny Dvania (Retd.) .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2015 OF 2024
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Colonel (TS) Naushirwan M. Irani (Retd.) .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2010 OF 2024
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Colonel Gulab Yasin Tamboli (Retd.) .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2011 OF 2024
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Colonel B. S. Narayan (Retd.) .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6895 OF 2025
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Captain Virendra Singh Marya (Retd.) .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6896 OF 2025
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Sarat Chandra Das (Retd.) .. Respondent
2
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6897 OF 2025
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Capt. Umesh Kumar Singh .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6898 OF 2025
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Prem Kumar (Retd.) .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6899 OF 2025
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Shankar Biswas (Retd.) .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1993 OF 2024
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Col. B. V. Parkhe (Retd.) .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4097 OF 2025
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Mahadev Paul, Ex. CPO Log (Std). .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4095 OF 2025
Union of India & Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
Shamboo Singh Yadav .. Respondent
3
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3811 OF 2025
Union of India & Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
No. 122254 Ex MC Mech R II
Shiv Kumar Gupta .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4094 OF 2025
Union of India & Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
Cdr Kavikant Mahapatra .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2012 OF 2024
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Col Mukesh Trehan .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2018 OF 2024
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Ex Naib Sub Nitin Rao Mahajan .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2023 OF 2024
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Nb Risaldar Kengare Sayab U Jaysingh .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4096 OF 2025
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Ex MCPO II Sant Lal .. Respondent
4
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3823 OF 2025
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Hitesh Goel .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2122 OF 2024
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Ex Sigmn Mali Rajaram Vasant
M15396638M
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2025 OF 2024
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Shahaji Hari Patil .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4172 OF 2024
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Ex Sub (CLK) Khatal Ankush Anandrao .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.17380 OF 2024
Union of India .. Petitioner
through Ministry of Defence
Versus
Maj. Rajgopalan C (Retd) .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.5799 OF 2025
Union of India .. Petitioner
5
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
through Ministry of Defence
Versus
Ex Hav Kenjale Suryakant Jagannath .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6541 OF 2024
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
JC 730893A Ex Sub Bhosale Sudhir Anna .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.17382 OF 2024
Union of India .. Petitioner
through Ministry of Defence
Versus
Ex Sepoy Malkar Girish Ashok .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.10754 OF 2025
Union of India .. Petitioner
through Ministry of Defence
Versus
Ex Sub Gund Sahebrao Yashwant .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4201 OF 2025
Union of India & Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
No.6393739N, Ex-Havilkar Chandrakant
Hausa Bapu Pote .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3018 OF 2025
Union of India .. Petitioner
through Ministry of Defence
Versus
Col Keerti Kumar Sharma .. Respondent
6
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.10965 OF 2025
Union of India .. Petitioner
through Ministry of Defence
Versus
Ex Jwo Uma Shankar Singh .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3019 OF 2025
Union of India .. Petitioner
through Ministry of Defence
Versus
Ex Sub Shedage Sudhir Ramchandra .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.18223 OF 2025
(WRIT PETITION NO. 16857 OF 2025)
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Bhise Bapurao Balu .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10967 OF 2025
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Col. Arun Bhandari .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10969 OF 2025
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Ex. GNR. Jaid Vidhur Vishwanathrao .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10964 OF 2025
Unionof India .. Petitioner
Versus
Ex. HFO Eshanti Pratap Kumar Padhi .. Respondent
7
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 25447 OF 2025
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Ex. Sub. Rajendra Yashwant Bhosale .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12968 OF 2025
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Commander Birendra Prasad
Singh (Retd.) .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 25583 OF 2025
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
CDR Rakesh Jaggi (Retd.) .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10968 OF 2025
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Lt. Col. Rajesh Kumar (Retd.) .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12969 OF 2025
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Awadhesh Singh (Ex. CPO LOG MAT) .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 27181 OF 2025
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Brijesh Singh Ex. POAF .. Respondent
8
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 28195 OF 2025
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Vikas Kumar .. Petitioner
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 28336 OF 2025
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Hav. K. Muniraj .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 18057 OF 2024
Uniion of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Ex. JWO Abhay Prasad Mahapatra .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 29309 OF 2025
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Chavan Dinesh Popat (Ex. Subedar) .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 28445 OF 2024
Union of India .. Petitioner
versus
Mahendra Nath Mishra .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 31522 OF 2024
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Upendra Singh .. Respondent
9
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 19049 OF 2024
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Pardeshi Manoj Pitambar .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6900 OF 2025
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Pradeep Kumar .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1990 OF 2024
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Colonel (TS0) Vithal Pitambar Chitte (Retd.).. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2575 OF 2025
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Dayashankar Pasi, Ex MWO
(Hony Flying Officer) .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1992 OF 2024
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Col. (TS) Asim Kumar Ramendra Chandra
Dutta IC-3891 0X .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2009 OF 2024
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Lt. Col. Yesh Paul Sharma .. Respondent
10
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2014 OF 2024
Union of India & Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
Brig VS Kanadari, VSM (Retd.) .. Respondent
ORIGINAL SIDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 4362 OF 2024
Union OF India & Anr. .. Petitioners
Versus
K. V. Santosh .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2802 OF 2024
Union OF India & Anr. .. Petitioners
Versus
Janardan Singh .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2810 OF 2024
Union of India & Anr. .. Petitioners
Versus
Anan Jaiswal .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 3899 OF 2024
Union of India .. Petitioners
Versus
Anand Baitule Lieutenant Commander .. Respondent
(Retd)
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 29059 OF 2024
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Naresh Kumar Balbir Singh .. Respondent
11
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 30051 OF 2024
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Radha Shyam Gujar .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 30784 OF 2024
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Virendra Kumar .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2468 OF 2024
Union of India & Anr. .. Petitioners
Versus
Sabha Jeet Singh .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 39025 OF 2024
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Rajesh Kumar .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 39038 OF 2024
Union of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Rajeev Kumar .. Respondent
Mr. Amarendra Mishra, Advocate for the Petitioner- UOI in WP Nos.
6895/2025, 6896/2025, 6897/2025, 6898/2025, 6899/2025,
1993/2024,4097/ 2025, 17380/ 2024, 17382/2024, 10754/2025,
10965/2025, 10967/2025, 10969/2025, 12968/2025, 10968/
2025, 12969/2025, 2009/2024, 19049/24, 6900/2025, 1994/
2024, 1990/2024, 1992/ 2024, WP/10964/2025 and WPST Nos.
5799/2025, 25583/2025, 27181/2025 & 29309/2025.
Mr. Amarendra Mishra a/w Adv Anusha Amin, Advocates for the
12
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
Petitioner in WP/2017/2024, WP/2021/2024, WP/2020/2024,
WP/2022/2024, WP/2013/2024, WP/2016/2024, WP/2015/2024,
WP/2010/2024, WP/2011/2024 and WP/2014/2024.
Mr. Sagar Batavia, Advocate for the Respondent in
WP/10964/2025.
Mr. Niranjan Shimpi, Advocate for the Petitioner in WP/4201/2025.
Mr. Satendra Kumar a/w Mr.Akshay Patil, Advocats for the
Respondent in WP Nos.2020/2024, 3823/2025, 3019/2025,
10967/2025, Writ Petition (ST.) Nos. 27181/2025, 10968/2025,
ST.28445/2025 1994/2024, 1992/2024, 4362/202, 2810/2024 &
2122/2024.
Mr. Angsuman Ojha, Advocate for the Respondent in WP Nos.
2016/2024, 1993/2024, 2012/2024 & 6899/2025.
Mr. Mahadevan Anand, Advocate for the Respondent in WP
Nos.2022/2024, 1990/2024, 3018/2025, & WPSt/28336/2025.
Mr. Dinesh Kumar Bishnoi. Advocate for the Respondent in WP
Nos.2010/2024, 2011/2024 and 2014/2024.
Ms. Anamika Malhotra, Advocate for the Petitioner in WP
Nos.4095/2025, 3811/2025, 4094/2025, 2012/2024,2018/2024,
2023/2024,4096/2025, 3823/2025, 2025/2024, 4172/2024,
6541/2024, 3018/2025, 3019/2025,18057/2024, 2575/2025,
2122/2024 AND WP (St) Nos.18223/2025, 25447/2025,
28195/2025, 28336/2025 & 31522/2024.
Mr. Sagar.S. Ambedkar a/w Ms.Disha Nidre, Advocates for the
Petitioner in WP (St)/28445/2024.
Mr. Yogendra Pratap Singh, Advocate for the Respondent in WP
Nos.2015/24, 4097/2025, 3811/2025, 2018/2024, 4096/2025,
6541/2024, 4201/2025, 10969/2025, 4094/2025, 6897/2025,
19457/2024& WPST Nos. 28195/2025, 29309/25, 31522/2024 &
25447/2025.
Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh, Advocate for the Respondent in
WP/6898/205, WP/12969/2025 & WP/4095/2025.
Mr. H.S.Verma, Advocate for the Respondent in WP Nos.4172/2024,
10965/2025 & WPSt No.5799/2025.
Mr. Dayashankar Pasi, Advocate Respondent party in person in
WP/2575/2025.
Mr. Kedar Dighe, Advocate for the Petitioner in OS Writ Petition
Nos.4362/2024, 2810/2024, 2802/2024, 2468/2024 and WP(L)
No.3899/2024.
ORIGINAL SIDE MATTERS
Mr. Amarendra Mishra, Senior Panel Counsel for the Petitioner in
Writ Petition (L) Nos.29059/2024, 30051/2024, 30784/2024,
39025/2024 and 39038/2024.
13
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh, Advocate for the Respondent in Writ
Petition (L) Nos.39038/2024 and 39025/2024.
Mr. Yogendra Pratap Singh a/w Ms. Vaishnavi Kushwah for the
Respondent In Writ Petition No.2802/2024 and Writ Petition (L)
Nos.3899/2024, 29059/2024, 30051/2024 and 30784/2024.
CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ &
GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.
Reserved On : 8th December 2025,
Pronounced On : 23rd January 2026
JUDGMENT
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, CJ :
This batch of writ petitions challenges the orders passed by
the Armed Forces Tribunal, Mumbai in the Original Applications
filed by the military personnel of the Army and Navy who have been
granted disability pension by the Tribunal.
2. A disability pension can be granted to an officer who is
invalided out of service on account of a disability which is either
attributable to or aggravated by the military service in non-battle
casualty cases and the disability is assessed at 20% or more. A
disability pension consisting of service element and disability
element may also be granted to a military personnel in low medical
category who retires on superannuation or on completion of tenure,
if found suffering on retirement from a disability which is either
attributable to or aggravated by military service. In all these orders
under challenge, the disease or disability pertained to primary
hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, symptomatic
dyslipidemia, V. P. S., obesity, bilateral sensorineural hearing loss,
neurilemmoma, ankylosing spondylitis, ulcerative colitis, retinal
vasculitis, chronic myeloid leukemia, panic disorder etc. The
Tribunal held that the disability occurred in the respondent-military
14
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
personnel due to service conditions or were aggravated by the
military service and rounded of the disability element to 50% or
above for life or for a fixed term.
3. In Writ Petition No.1994 of 2024, the order passed by the
Tribunal in Original Application No.166 of 2020 has been
challenged. In the said case, which was taken up as the lead case,
the Tribunal held that the Diabetes Mellitus at the rate of 20% for
life was aggravated by the military service and allowed the claim for
disability pension to Lt. Colonel S. K. Rathore who was in low
medical category when he was prematurely retired from service on
1st July 2003. He was released from military service on 1 st July 2003
on the basis of the Medical Board proceedings dated 3 rd April 2003.
He served in Army for more than 23 years and during this period he
was posted at Imphal, Tuting in Manipur, Ladakh and participated
in operation Rakshak and operation Parakram. There is no dispute
that he was not suffering from any disability before joining the
Armed Forces. It is recorded in the Medical Board proceedings that
his health was affected due to continued difficult service conditions
as an Infantry Officer. He was on special duty during operation
Parakram from 19th December 2001 to 30 th November 2002. The
medical report records that the disability detected in him on 1 st July
2002 was aggravated by his continued service conditions as Infantry
Officer and his deployment in operation Parakram. The claim of
disability pension was not decided during his lifetime, he was
diagnosed with Pancreatic Cancer and died on 1 st November 2014.
Notwithstanding these indisputed facts, the Invaliding Military
Board rendered its opinion that the Diabetes Mellitus was a
constitutional disorder and it was not connected with the military
service and he was denied disability pension. His medical records
and the Medical Board proceedings which are produced along with
15
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
the writ petition reveal the aforementioned facts as under: -
IC-38914N LT COL BK RATHORE HO 11 1N
CONFIDENTIAL
In lieu of AFMSF-16 (Ver 2002)
MEDICAL BOARD PROCEEDINGS
INVALIDMENT/RELEASE IN LOW MEDICAL CATEGORY
SOLELY/NOT SOLELY ON MEDICAL GROUNDS
Authority for Board: Army Place: MH, Date: June Date of Release
HQ letter Ahmedabad 2003 01 Jul 2003
No.33001/8830/97/MS PR
dated 03 Apr 2003
Name: Suresh Kumar Service No.: IC- Rank: Lt Col Date of Birth
Rathore 38914N 18 Sep 1957
Unit/Ship: Service Arm/Corps/ Total Service Total Flying
(Army/ Branch/Trade 23 Years and Hours/Service
HQ 11 Inf Div Navy/Air BIHAR REGT 24 Days afloat: -
Force):
ARMY
Permanent Identification Marks:
Address: (a) Small black mole on inside of right elbow.
B-41 Shantam (b) Two Scar marks on chin.
Towers
B/H Civil
Hospital
Shahibaug,
Ahmedadbad –
380004
(GUJARAT)
Disability: (a) DIABETES MELLITUS, (b) PRIMARY HYPERTENSION,
250, V-67 401, V-67
PART I
PERSONAL STATEMENT
1. Give details of service (P=Peac OR F=Field/Operational/Sea service)
Ser From To Place/Ship P/F Ser From To Place/ P/
No. No Ship F
(i) 15 Jul 80 07 Oct Dehradun P (ii) 08 20 Jan Imphal F
81 Oct 84 (Manipur)
81
(iii) 21 Jan 07 Gandhinag P (iv) 08 06 Dec Tuting/ F
84 Jun ar Jun 89 Imphal
16
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
87 87
(v) 07 Dec 17 Udaipur P (vi) 18 25 Sep Ladakh F
89 Jan Jan 94
92 92
(vii) 26 Sep 25 Sep Study P (viii 26 26 Nov (Op F
94 96 leave ) Sep 96 Rakshak)
(Baroda) 96 HAA
(Valley)
(ix) 27 Nov 14 Dec Lucknow P (x) 15 23 Dec Bhopal P
96 97 Dec 200
97
(xi) 24 Dec 18 Dec Ahmedaba P (xi) 19 30 Nov (Op F
2000 01 d Dec 02 Parakram
01 )
Barmer
Sector
(xii) 01 Dec Till dt. Ahmedaba P
02 d
2. Give particulars of any previous service in Army/Navy/Air Force and
state whether you received a disability pension in respect of such service? -
Nil
3. Give particulars of any diseases, wounds or injuries from which you are
suffering -
(a) DIABETES MELLITUS (b) PRIMARY HYPERTENSION.
Illnes First Started Where Approximate dates and periods
s, treated treated
Woul
d,
Injur
y
Date Place
(a) 01 Jul 1993 Leh 153 Adimitted In MH 153 GH on 01
DIAB (Ladakh GH, Jul 93 to 20 Jul 93.
ETES Scouts) C/O 56
(b) 24 Jun 2002 24 Jun APO
PRIM 2002 OP Admitted in MH Ahmedabad on
ARY PARAK 24 Jun 2002 and treatment
HYPE RAM given till 02 Jul 2002
RTEN (Barmer
SION Sector)
4. Did you suffer from any disability mentioned in question no.3 or anything
like it before joining the Armed Forces? If so, give details and dates – No.
5. Give details of any incidents duting your service which you think caused
17
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
or made your disability worse. Continued difficult service conditions as an
infantry officer could have adversely affected my health.
6. In case of wound or injury, state how
they happened and whether or not
(a) Medical Board or Court of Inquiry was held
(b) Injury Report was submitted.
7. Any other information you wish to give about your health – Nil
I certify that I have answered as fully as possible all the questions
about my service and personal history and that the information given is true
to the best of my knowledge.
Signature of Witness Sd/- Signature
Sd/-
Service No.IC-37482X Rank Lt Col Gurjeet Shah Date - 31-05-03
Note: The questions should be answered in the indivisuals own words.
This statement and the date given above will be checked from official
records as far as possible by the parent Unit/Ship of the individual.
CONFIDENTIAL
IC-38914N LT COL BK RATHORE HO 11 1N
CONFIDENTIAL
2
PART II
MEDICAL EXAMINATION
1 (a) Total Nos of Teeth : 29 Missing/Unsaveable Teeth
(b) Total Nos Defective UR87654321 12345 7 UL
teeth Nil
(c) Total Nos Dental Points L R 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1234567 lL
18/22
(d) Condition of Gums Missing teeth to be indicated by Horizontal
Healthy Dentaly fit line (-) and Unsaveable teeth by a cross (x)
through the appropriate number
2 Investigations
3 (a) Physical Capacity
(i) Height 175 cm (ii) Weight actual 63 Kg (iii) Ideal Wt 70 Kg. (iv) Over Wt
_% (v) Waist 80 cm (vi) Chest full Expansion 90 cm. (vii) Range of
Expansion 5 cm
(b) Skin NAD/
(c) Cardio Vascular system
(I) Pulse 72 m. (ii) BP 12492 mm/Hg (iii) Peripheral Pulsation NAD/ (M) (ii)
Heat Size NAD/ (v) Sound NAD/ (M) (vi) Rhythm NAD/ Regular
18
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
(d) Respiratory System NAD/
(e) Gastro Intestinal System
(i) Liver Palapable (/N) __ cm (ii) Spleen Palpable (/N) __ cm
(f) Central Nervous System
(i) Higher Mental Function NAD/ ___ (ii) Speech NAD/ __ (iii) Reflexes
NAD/ __
(iv) Tremors √Nil/Fine/Coarse (ii) Self Balancing Test Fairly
Steady/Unsteady
4 (a) Locomotor System NAD/ (b) Spine NAD/
(c) Hemia NAD/ (d) Hydrocela NAD/
(e) Haemorrhoids NAD/ (f) Breast NAD/
5 (a) Distant R L (b) Near R L (c) CP
Vision Vision
Without 6/12 6/12 Without N-5 N-5
Glasses Glasses
II
With Glasses 6/6 6/6 With __ __
Glasses
6 (a) Hearing R L Both (e) Audiometry Record
FW 600 600 600 Cms
Cms Cms
CV Cm Cms Cms
(b) Tympanic Y/ Y/
Membrane
Intact
(c) Mobility Mobil Mobile
(Valsalva) e
(d) Nose,
Throat &
Sinuses NAD/
7 Gynaecological Exam NA
(a) Menstrual History (b) LMP
(c) Nos of pregnancies (d) Nos of Abortions
(e) No of children (f) Date of last confinement
(g) Vaginal Discharge NAD/ (h) Prolapse NAD/
(i) USG Abdomen NAD/
Remarks : To be released in Med Cat S1 HA1 P2(p)
19
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
Sd/-
Rajesh Kumar
Signature of MO
Date: 30.05.2003 Seal HO 11 INF DIV
Note : 1. Delete what is not applicable. In case any abnormality is
detected, delete “NAD” and enter findings.
2. This part is to be completed by AMA in case of Release in low
medical category and by ward MO in case of invalidments.
CONFIDENTIAL
IC-38914N LT COL SK RATHORE : HQ 11 INF DIV
CONFIDENTIAL
3
PART III
STATEMENT OF CASE
1. Date the individual joined your Unit/Ship 24 Dec 2000
2. Was he in Low Medical Category (Y) If ‘Yes’
(a) What was/were the disability/disabilities? (a) DIABETES MELLITUS
(b) PRIMARY HYPERTENSION
(b) What was his medical category and since when?
S1H1A1P2E1 since 01 Jul 93
(Diabetes Mellitus)
S1H1A1P2E1 since 01 Jul 2002
(Primary Hypertension)
(Last categorization Medical Board) Re-cat Medical Board was held on
30 Dec 2002 at MH Ahmedabad.
(c) How long has he been in lower medical category? Since
(a) 01 Jul 1993 (First Medical Board)
(b) 01 Jul 2002 (Detected and placed
in LMC)
(Primary Hypertension)
4. Was he excused any duty? - All military duties as per his appointment
were performed by the officer.
5. Nature of duties in the unit (Give details)- Est Offr, HQ 11 Inf Div (Adm
duties in peace, in exercises and during OP PARAKRAM were performed by
the officer).
6. Did the duties involve severe/exceptional stress and strain? (Give details)
(a) Since when - No
(b) On special day/occasions - Yes (During OP PARAKRAM)
7. Was he living with his family? If so – Family was staying in present stn
i.e. Ahmedabad Cantt
(a) Since when since 03 Jan 2001
1. Offr was deployed in OP
20
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
PARAKRAM from 19 Dec 2001
till 30 Nov 2002.
2. On de-induction, offr was staying
with family since 01 Dec 2002.
(b) Govt. Accommodation or under own arrangements-Govt Accn.
8. Was he living in unit lines? - NA
9. Dates of last leave and where spent, (Village/Town/State) – 04 Aug 2002
to 01 Sep 2002 C/o 616/3 Camp Ahmedabad Cantt – 03.
10. If disability is due to infection
(a) Any other case in the unit
(b) Is the disease endemic in the town in surrounding areas? NA
(c) Preventive measures taken?
11. In case of Sexually Transmitted Diseases – NA
(a) When and where was it contacted.
(b) Name of Hospital/STD center where treated.
(c) Was survelliance and follow-up treatment completed?
(If so give date of FTC)
(d) if survelliance and follow-up treatment was not completed,
state service factors responsible.
12. Do you consider the disability/death is attributable to service? (Give
reasons) Yes, Officer developed primary hypertension during long and
continuous deployment in OP PARAKRAM.
13. Do you consider the disability aggravated by service? (Give reasons).
Yes, continued service conditions being an Infantry officer and deployment
in OP PARAKRAM for one year.
Note. Injury Report (for injury cases)/ 14 days Charter of Duties (for HHD
cases)/ any other relevant document to be attached by the Commanding
Officer and endorsement made in this column.
Unit/Ship : HQ 11 Inf Div (VS Rajput)
Station : C/O 56 APO Col
Date : 3/May 2003 OC Tps
Note. Injury Report (for injury cases)/14 days Charter of Duties (for HHD
cases)/any other relevant document to be attached by the Commanding
Officer and endorsement made in this column.
CONFIDENTIAL
IC-38914N LT COL SK RATHORE : HQ 11 INF DIV
CONFIDENTIAL
4
PART IV
STATEMENT OF CASE
1. Chronological list of the disabilities
Disabilities Date of Origin Place and unit where
21
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
serving at the time
(a) DIABETES 01 Jul 1993 Leh (Ladakh Scouts),
MELLITUS hq 3 Inf Div
(b) PRIMARY 01 Jul 2002 OP Parakram
HYPERTENSION (Barmer Sector),
HQ 11 Inf Div
2. Clinical details. Attach clinical summary here giving the salient
facts of-Attached.
(a) Personal and relevant family history.
(b) Specialist report.
(c) Treatment.
(d) Present condition in detail.
Note. Insert the clinical summary sheet between page 1 and 5 without any
folds. No part of the attachment should protrude out of the form.
_________________________________________________________________________
PART V
OPINION OF THE MEDICAL BOARD
(Not to be communicated to the Individual)
1. Casual Relationship of the Disability with Service condition or otherwise
Disability Attributable to Aggravated Not Reasons/ Cause
service (Y/N) by service connected Specific condition
(Y/N) with and period in
service service
(Y/N)
(a) DIABETES N N Y Constitutional
MELLITUS disorder not
connected with
mil service
(b) PRIMARY N Y N Yes due to stress
HYPERTENSION and strain of mil
service
(c)
(d) Member-II Member-I Presiding
Officer
(e)
Note. Disability “Not connected with service” would be neither Attributable
nor Aggravated by service.
4. The learned counsel for the Union of India contended that the
opinion of the Medical Board is a report by the trained medical
experts and the same cannot be reviewed by the Tribunal. The
22
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
respondent-military personnel were subjected to medical evaluation
at the time of their retirement and most of them were diagnosed
with primary hypertension, diabetes, obesity etc. which are lifestyle
diseases and were detected in the respondent-military personnel
when most of them were posted at peace station. Mr.Amrendra
Mishra, the learned counsel for the Union of India submitted that in
disease cases the decision taken by the Service Headquarters in
case of the Officers and OIC Records in case of PBOR as to
attributability or aggravation of the disease based on the findings of
the Invaliding Medical Board shall be final and for life, if the same
was approved by the next higher medical authority. There is no
presumption in law that every disease detected in the respondent-
military personnel after his entry in the service was due to service
conditions or aggravated on account of the service conditions. The
decision in “Dharamvir Singh” is not applicable in case of the
respondent-military personnel as most of whom were retired
prematurely and not invalided out of service on the medical
grounds. Similary, the primary contention raised by Mr. Kedar
Dighe, the learned counsel for the petitioner-Union of India
appearing in Navy matters was that the Tribunal cannot interfere
with the opinion of the Release Medical Board. There was no casual
connection, medical or logical, between the disease and the Naval
Services at peace station. He contended that the Release Medical
Board comprises of three professionals and examines the person to
be released from service based upon the investigation conducted by
the specialist doctor. It also scrutinizes the medical service records
of the personnel/officer maintained during his service and the
records of the previous Medical Boards. The decision of the Release
Medical Board is further scrutinized by the appropriating authority.
This is the submission made on behalf of the Union of India that the
23
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
judgment in “Dharamvir Singh”1 cannot be applied in every case and
each case has to be examined in its own facts and circumstances.
There are substantial changes in the statutory regime under the the
Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to the Armed
Forces Personnel, 2008 (in short, Pension Entitlement Rules-2008)
and there is no scope for any automatic presumption as to the
disability incurred in the course of the military service as was the
position in the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to
Armed Forces Personnel, 1982 (in short, Pension Entitlement Rules-
1982). The other learned counsels appearing for the Union of India
adopted the aforesaid submissions and contended that the Tribunal
committed a serious error in law while granting disability pension to
the respondent-military personnel. On the other hand, the learned
counsels for the respondents contended that a mere opinion of the
Medical Board that the disability was not an outcome of the
rigorous service conditions or not attributable to the military service
is not a ground to deny the disability pension and the onus is on the
employer to prove otherwise.
5. Before dealing with the grounds raised on behalf of the Union
of India, we shall refer to the facts of a few more cases which were
highlighted by the learned counsel for the Union of India.
Army Matters
(a) In Writ Petition No.4201 of 2025, Ex-Havildar Chandrakant
Hausa Bapu Pote was detected Chronic Myeloid Leukemia
ICD No.C92.1 and placed in temporary low medical
category P3 (T-24) with effect from 8 th December 2004 while
serving at peace station. On subsequent review, he was
placed in permanent low medial category P2 from 24 th May
2005 and granted retention in service under sheltered
1. Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India & Ors.: (2013) 7 SCC 316
24
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
appointment. Primary Hypertension (I-10) and Panic
Disorder (F41.0) were also detected sometime in November
2015 and March 2019 respectively and he was placed in
low medical category S2 (Permanent) with effect from
1st December 2019. After serving 24 years and 2 days, he
was released from military service in low medical category
on fulfilling of the terms of engagement under Rule 13(3)
Item III(i) of Army Rules, 1954. The Release Medical Board
held on 1st January 2021 found that the Chronic Myeloid
Leukemia ICD No.C92.1 was due to genetic mutation and
not related to service conditions. The onset of Hypertension
and Panic Disorder both for life developed while he was at
the peace station and were not related to service
conditions. The Release Medical Board observed that those
diseases were neither attributable to nor aggravated by
military service. It is stated that the composite percentage
of disablement was assessed at 61% for life but the net
assessment for qualifying disability pension was Nil for life.
(b) In Writ Petition No.2010 of 2024, Col. Gulab Yasin Tamboli
was detected Type II Diabetes to the extent of 20% in
August 1996 while posted at peace station. He
superannuated from service on 31st May 2007 on
completion of the terms of engagement. The Release
Medical Board held on 23rd November 2006 rendered its
opinion that the disease was neither attributable to nor
aggravated by military service.
(c) In Writ Petition No.2012 of 2024, Col. Mukesh Trehan was
detected Primary Hypertension and Obesity in July 1999
and Type II Diabetes in July 2005 when he was posted at
peace station. He prematurely retired from service on
25
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
15th April 2007. The Release Medical Board observed that
the Obesity and Metabolic Disorder were the primary cause
and the diseases were neither attributable to nor
aggravated by military service.
(d) Ex-Havildar K. Muniraj, who is the respondent in Writ
Petition (Stamp) No.28336 of 2025 was detected Primary
Hypertension with effect from 29th January 2020 and
discharged from military service on 31st May 2022 on
completing the terms of engagement. He developed
disability while serving at peace station and the Release
Medical Board observed that the disease was neither
attributable to nor aggravated by military service.
(e) Major Rajgopalan, who is the respondent in Writ Petition
No.17380 of 2024, was detected Cervical Spondylosis in
October 1993 at peace station. He was prematurely retired
in low medical category on 13th October 2003. The Release
Medical Board held on 27th August 2003 gave its opinion
that the disease was constitutional in nature.
Navy Matters
(f) In Writ Petition (Stamp) No.3899 of 2024, the respondent-
Anand Baitule was enrolled in the Indian Navy Service on
4th February 2008 as Short Service Commission Officer. At
the time of his entry in the service, he was found in Shape
I. He was released from service on 4 th February 2018 in low
medical category. Before discharge from service, he was
examined by the Release Medical Board and declared fit.
The Release Medical Board held that the disability was
neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.
He preferred an Appeal under the Casualty Pension Rules
2008 which was rejected on 27th March 2018. He preferred
26
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
Second Appeal which was said to be pending when he
approached the Armed Forces Tribunal.
(g) In Writ Petition No.2802 of 2024, Janardan Singh was
found in Shape I at the time of his entry in the Indian Navy
Service as Boys Entry Sailor on 15 th May 1971. He suffered
heart-attack on 8th March 2004 and was discharged from
service on 31st May 2006 on expiry of the terms of
engagement. He was detected Coronary Heart Disease –
Inferior Valve Myocardiac Infraction (DVD-RCA-LAD-NON-
OBSTRUCTIVE) and was given sheltered appointment in
peace station. He filed First Appeal which was dismissed on
15th September 2009. The Second Appeal filed by him was
also rejected by an order dated 12th August 2010 and he
approached the Tribunal in Original Application No.243 of
2021 after a period of 10 years and 10 months.
(h) Anan Jaiswal, who is the respondent in Writ Petition
No.2810 of 2024 was a Surgeon Lieutenant enrolled in the
Indian Navy Service on 28th July 2009. He resigned from
service on 15th May 2012 for personal reasons. At the time
of his entry in the service, he was found in Shape I and
was posted at the peace station. The Release Medical Board
detected Monomelic Amyotrophy which was assessed at the
rate of 20% and the percentage qualified for disability
pension was at the rate of 20% for life.
(i) Sabha Jeet Singh, who is the respondent in Writ Petition
No.2468 of 2024, was enrolled as Matric Entry Rating in
the Indian Navy Service on 3rd January 1989 and was in
Shape I. While posted at INS Satavahana Naval base, he
fell down while cutting branches of trees and sustained
injury but refused to undergo surgery, as advised by the
27
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
Specialist Medical Officer. He was diagnosed with Primary
Hypertension in March 2016 and superannuated from
service on 31st January 2017. The Release Medical Board
detected Primary Hypertension at the rate of 30% for life,
compression and facture LV3 with CAL SAC and nerve root
compression ICD was assessed at the rate of 20% for life.
The opinion of the Release Medical Board was that he had
disability at the rate of 20% for life attributable to military
service and the composite disability was 40% for life but
his disability qualifying for disability pension was reduced
in view of his unwillingness for surgery and thus revised
disability percentage came down to 14%.
(j) In Writ Petition No.4362 of 2024, the respondent-K.V.
Santosh was in Shape I when he was inducted in Indian
Navy Service as sailor on 30 th July 1996. He was
discharged from service on 30th July 2011 in low medical
category [CNS (INV) seizures]. He was discharged from
service on expiry of the terms of engagement. He was
posted at INS Abhimanyu which is a training
establishment for Navy Special Forces. He was always
posted for administrative duties and not as an instructor or
a trainee. The Release Medical Board detected disability of
20% for lifelong which was neither attributable to nor
aggravated by military service.
6. Mr.Amrendra Mishra, the learned counsel for the Union of
India contended that it is a condition precedent under the Pension
Entitlement Rules-2008 for the grant of disability pension that the
disability was caused by service factor. The medical test at the time
of entry in the service is not exhaustive and it may not detect some
28
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
dormant disease which may be hereditary, constitutional or
congenital in nature and may appear later in life. Therefore, the mere
manifestation of a disease during the military service shall not per se
establish the attributability or aggravation by service. This is
necessary for grant of disability pension that there is casual
connection between the disability or death and military service and
onset of the disease. According to the Union of India, Rule 11 of the
Pension Entitlement Rules-2008 contemplates that the aggravation
of a disease is only in the case where the personnel or the officer was
posted in extreme climatic conditions.
7. Notwithstanding the objections raised on the ground of delay
and laches, voluntary retirement taken by the respondent-military
personnel, inapplicability of the Pension Entitlement Rules–2008
etc., a pertinent question of law which arises in this batch of writ
petitions is whether the opinion of the Medical Board that the
constitutional disorder in the respondent-military personnel is not
connected with or attributable to or aggravated by the military
service is a sacrosanct report to decline disability pension and the
Tribunal has no jurisdiction at all to interfere with such a finding of
the Medical Board.
8. The relevant provisions under the Pension Entitlement Rules-
2008 lay down the following conditions :-
“ 4. Invalidment from Service:
(a) Invalidation from service with disablement caused by service
factors is a condition precedent for grant of disability pension.
However, disability element will also be admissible to personnel who
retire or are discharged on completion of terms of engagement in low
medical category on account of disability attributable to or
aggravated by military service, provided the disability is accepted as
nor less than 20%.
(b) An individual who is boarded out of service on medical grounds
before completion of terms of engagement shall be treated as
invalided from service.
29
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
(c) PBOR and equivalcht ranks in other services who are placed
permanently in a medical category other than SHAPE 1 or equivalent
and are discharged bccause (i) no alternative employment suitable to
their low medical category can be provided, or, (il) they are unwilling
to accept altemative employment, or, (iti) they having been retained in
alternative employment are discharged before the completion of their
engagement, shall be deemed to have been invalided out of service.
5. Medical Test at entry stage:
The medical test at the time of entry is not exhaustive, but its scope is
limited to broad physical examination.Therefore, it may not detect
some dormant disease. Besides, certain hereditary constitutional and
congenital diseases may manifest later in life, irtespective of service
conditions. The mere fact that a disease has manifested during
military service does not per se establish attributability to or
aggravation by military service.
6.Causal connection:
For award of disability pension/special family pension, a causal
connection between disability or death and military service has to be
established by appropriate authorities.
7. Onus of proof:
Ordinarily the claimant will not be called upon to prove the condition
of entitlement. However,where claim preferred after 15 years of
discharge/retirement/invalidment/release by which time the service
documents of the claimant are destroyed after the prescribed
retention period, the onus to prove the entitlement would lie on the
claimant.
8. Post discharge claims:
(a) Cases in which a disease was not present at the time of the
member's retirement/discharge from service but arose within 7 years
thereafter, may be recognized as attributable to service if it can be
established by the competent medica) authority that the disability is
a delayed manifestation of a pathological process set in motion by
service conditions obtaining prior to discharge.
(b) In cases where an individual in receipt of a disability pension dies
within a period of 7 years form the date of release/retirement, may
be considered to have died of she disease for which he was granted
disability pension if it can be so established by the competent
medical authority. If the medical certificate as to the cause of the
death is not available, other factors and circumstantial evidence
would be taken into account.
10. Attributability:
30
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
(a) Injuries:
In respect of accidents or injuries, the fallowing rules shall be
observed:
(i) Injuries sustained when the individual is 'on duty", as defined,
shall be treated as attributable to military service, (provided a nexus
between injury and military service is established).
(ii) In cases of self-inflicted injuries while 'on duty', attributability
shall not be conceded unless it is established that service factors
were responsible for such action.
(b) Diseases:
(i) For acceptance of a disease as attributable to military service, the
following two conditions must be satisfied simultaneously:-
(a) that the disease has arisen during the period of military service,
and,
(b) that the disease has been caused by the conditions of
employments in military service.
(ii) Diseases due to infection arising in service other than that
transmitted through sexual contact shall merit an entitlement of
attributability and where the disease may have been contracted prior
to enrolment or during leave, the incubation period of the disease will
be taken into consideration on the basis of clinical course as
determined by the competent medical authority.
(iii) If nothing at all is known about the cause of disease and the
presumption of the entitlement in favour of the claimant is not
rebutted, attributability should be conceded on the basis of the
clinical picture current scientific medical application.
(iv) When the diagnosis and/or treatment of a disease was faulty,
unsatisfactory or delayed due to exigencies of service, disability
caused due to any adverse effects arising as a complication shall be
conceded as attributable.
11. Aggravation:
A disability shall be conceded aggravated by service if its onset is
hastened or the subsequent course is worsened by specific conditions
of military service, such as posted in places of extreme climatic
conditions, environmental factors related to service conditions e.g,
Fields, Operations, High Altitudes etc.
12. Competent Authorities:
(a) Attributability/Aggravation:
(i) Injury Cases:
Decision regarding attributability/aggravation in respect of injury
cases in invalidment/retirement or discharge would be taken by the
Service HQrs. in case of officers and OIC Records in case of PBOR, for
the purpose of casualty pensionary awards.
31
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
(ii) Disease Cases:
The decision regarding attributability/aggravation in respect of
disease cases shall be taken by the Service HQrs in case of officers
and OIC Records in case of PBOR on the basis of the findings of the
RMB/IMB as approved by the next higher medical authority which
would be treated as final and for life.
(b) Assessment:
(i) The assessment with regard to percentage of disability in both
injury and disease cases as recommended by the Invaliding/Release
Medical Board as approved by the next higher medical authority shall
be treated as final and for life unless the individual himself requests
for a review, except in the cases of disability/disabilities which are
not of a permanent nature.
(ii) Where disablement is due to more than one disability, a composite
assessment of the degree of disablement shall be made by reference
to the combined effect of all such disabilities in addition to separate
assessment for each disability. In case of overlapping disabilities, the
composite assessment may not be the sum of individual disabilities.
(c) Re-Assessment of Disability:
There shall be no periodical review by Resurvey Medical Boards for
re-assessment of disabilities except for disabilities which are not of a
permanent nature, for which there shall be only one reassessment of
the percentage by a Reassessment Medical Board. The percentage of
disability assessed/recommended by the Reassessment Medical
Board shall be final and for life unless the individual himself asks for
a review."
9. Mr. Kedar Dighe, the learned counsel for the Navy referred to
the Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964 which outline the conditions
for eligibility under Regulation 100 for disability pension. Under
Regulation 101, a disability pension may be granted to a person who
is invalided from service on account of a disability which is
attributable to or aggravated by the service and the disability is
assessed at twenty percent or over. Explanation (2) says that the
service rendered in aid of the civil power shall be treated to be service
in the Indian Navy for the purpose of the Regulations. Regulation
105 contemplates the manifestation of disability after discharge from
the service and provides that the officer after his discharge from
32
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
service may be granted disability pension in addition to his pension
or gratuity provided he is found to be suffering from a disease within
a period of seven years from the date of discharge and the disease is
accepted as attributable to naval service. Regulation 105-B provides
that a sailer may at the discretion of the competent authority be
granted a disability element as if he has been discharged on account
of that disability if he at the time of discharge was found to be
suffering from a disability attributable to or aggravated by naval
service. The regulations under the Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964
provide as under: -
“100. Eligibility.
- Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, the following persons
shall be eligible for disability pension, namely:
(i) sailors on continuous service terms
(ii) boys and apprentices;
(iii) reservists when called up for service or for training.
101. Conditions for the grant of disability pension.
- Unless otherwise specifically provided, a disability pension may be
granted to a person who is invalided from service on account of a disability
which is attributable to or aggravated by service and is assessed at
twenty per cent, or over.Explanation. (1) The question whether a disability
is attributable to or aggravated by service shall be determined in
accordance with the rules contained in Appendix V to these
regulations.Explanation. (2) Service rendered in aid of the civil power shall
be treated as service in the Indian Navy for the purpose of this regulation.
105-B. Disability at the time of discharge.
(1) A sailor, who is discharged from service after he has completed the
period of his engagement and is, at the time of discharge found to be
suffering from a disability attributable to or aggravated by naval service
may at the discretion of the competent authority be granted in addition to
the service pension admissible, a disability element as if he has been
discharged on account of that disability.
(2)The disability element of pension will be assessed on the accepted
degree of disablement at the time of retirement or discharge on the basis of
the rank held on the date on which the wound or injury was sustained or
in case of a disease on the date of the first removal from duty on account of
33
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
that disease.
(3) The provisions in sub-regulations (1) and (2) shall also apply to sailors
discharged from service on completion of the period of their engagement
and who have earned only a service gratuity.”
10. The Pension Entitlement Rules-2008 were brought into
existence with effective from 1 st January 2008 and regulated the
cases of disablement or death of service personnel, who became
non-effective on or after 1st January 2008. These Rules superseded
the Pension Entitlement Rules-1982 (as amended from time to
time). These Rules are to be read in conjunction with the Guide to
Medical Officers (Military Pension) 2008. These Rules, however,
shall not apply to the cases of disablement or death if it has
happened during the period 3 rd September 1939 to 31st March 1948
or during the period of emergency post-1948. This is the stand
taken by the Union of India that the Pension Entitlement Rules-
2008 have brought into existence a new regulatory regime which
restricts the claim of disability pension in many aspects. However,
in our opinion, that is not the correct interpretation of the
provisions under the Pension Entitlement Rules-2008. These Rules
seek to expand the scope of disability pension. The expression
“Invalidation from Service” with disablement caused by service
factors is a condition precedent for grant of disability pension. There
is nothing new in Rule 4. The disability element is admissible to the
personnel who retired or are discharged on completion of the terms
of engagement “in low medical category” on account of disability
attributable to or aggravated by the military service, to the extent of
not less than 20%. It is further provided under Rule 4 that an
individual who is boarded out of service on medical grounds before
completion of the terms of engagement shall be treated as invalided
from service. The scope of the Pension Entitlement Rules-2008
covers the personnel of PBOR and equivalent ranks in other services
34
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
who are placed permanently in a medical category other than Shape
I or equivalent and are discharged because (i) no alternative
employment suitable to their low medical category can be provided,
or (ii) they are unwilling to accept alternative employment, or
(iii) they having been retained in alternative employment are
discharged before the completion of their engagement, shall be
deemed to have been invalided out of service. Rule 5 which provides
that the mere fact that a disease has manifested during military
service shall not per se establish attributability or aggravation by
military service, does not bring in any drastic change in pre-2008
regime. Similarly, a requirement that a casual connection between
the disability or death and military service has to be established is
not intended to deny the benefit of disability pension.
11. These Rules provide that the claimant shall not be ordinarily
called upon to prove the condition of entitlement except where a
claim is preferred after 15 years of discharge/retirement/
invalidment/release. The period of limitation of 15 years has been
provided because there is a prescribed retention period for the
service documents. Therefore, in absence thereof, the claimant shall
be required to prove his entitlement for disability pension. Such a
provision under Rule 7, in fact, is a manifestation of the intention
that a delay in making a representation for disability pension shall
not be a ground to reject the claim. The provisions under Rule 6 as
to casual connection between the disability or death and military
service and under Rule 5 that any manifestation of a disease during
military services shall not per se establish attributability or
aggravation by military service are substantially diluted under Rule
8 which provides that a disease which occurs within seven years
after the retirement or discharge from service may be recognized as
attributable to service if it is established by the competent medical
35
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
authority that the disability is a delayed manifestation of a
pathological medical process set in motion by service conditions
obtaining prior to discharge. It is further provided under Rule 8 that
it may be considered, if established by the competent medical
authority, that the death of a personnel which occurred within
seven years of the date of his release or retirement from service was
on account of the disease for which he was granted disability
pension. The expression “aggravation” has been defined under Rule
11, which provides that a disability shall be conceded aggravated
by service if its onset is hastened or the subsequent course is
worsened by specific conditions of a military service, such as,
posting in the places of extreme climatic conditions, environmental
factors related to service conditions, field-operations, high altitudes
etc. The cause of disability or death resulting from a disease shall be
regarded as attributable to service when it is established that the
disease arose during service coupled with the conditions and
circumstances of duty in military service which contributed to the
onset of the disease.
12. Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961
is also a relevant provision which has to be kept in mind for
disability pension. It pertains to the primary conditions for the grant
of disability pension and provides that 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% or over. Similarly, a
low medical category military personnel who retires on
superannuation or on completion of tenure is granted disability
pension under Regulation 37 of the Pension Regulations for the
Army, 2008. Under the said Regulation, it is provided that an officer
36
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
who retires on attaining the prescribed age of retirement or on
completion of tenure, if found suffering on retirement, from a
disability which is either attributable to or aggravated by military
service and so recorded by the Release Medical Board then such
benefit may be granted to the officer in addition to the retiring
pension if the degree of disability is accepted at 20% or more. The
Regulation 37 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008
provides as under: -
“DISABILITY ELEMENT IN ADDITION TO RETIRING PENSION TO OFFICER
RETIRED ON ATTAINING THE PRESCRIBED AGE OF RETIREMENT
37. (a) An Officer who retires on attaining the prescribed age of retirement
or on completion of tenure, if found suffering on retirement, from a
disability which is either attributable to or aggravated by military service
and so recorded by Release Medical Board, maybe granted in addition to
the retiring pension admissible, a disability element from the date of
retirement if the degree of disability is accepted at 20% or more.
(b) The disability element for 100% disability shall be at the rate laid down
in Regulation 94 (b) below. For disabilities less than 100% but not less
than 20%, the above rates shall be proportionately reduced. Provisions
contained in Regulation 94(c) shall not be applicable for computing
disability element.”
13. Besides the afore-mentioned statutory provisions, the general
principles as to entitlement of the disability pension under the
Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pension) 2002 provides that the
Medical Board should examine cases in the light of the etiology of
the particular disease and record their conclusions with reasons in
support thereof after considering all the relevant particulars of the
case. For example, the manner in which hypertension in a
personnel/officer has to be assessed is provided under the caption
“assessment of degree of disablement on invalidment and release”. It
is provided thereunder that the first consideration should be to
determine whether the hypertension is primary (essential) or
secondary. In cases where the hypertension is found to be
37
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
secondary in nature, the entitlement considerations should be
directed to the underlying disease process.
"43 . Hypertension
The first consideration should be to determine whether the
hypertension is primary (essential) or secondary. If secondary,
entitlement considerations should be directed to the underlying disease
process (e.g. Nephritis), and it is unnecessary to notify hypertension
separately. It is better to clearly indicate whether it is a case of
essential hypertension, giving the evidence in support.
As in the case artherosclerosis, entitlement of attributability is is
never appropriate, but where disablement for essential hypertension
appears to have arisen or become worse in service, the question
whether service compulsions have caused aggravation must be
considered. Each case should be judged on its merits taking into
account particularly the physical condition on entry into service, the
age, the amount and duration of any stress and whether any other
service compulsion has operated.
Hypertension generally arising in close time relationship to
service in field area, active operational area, war like situation both in
peace and field area counter-insurgency areas and high altitude areas
are acceptable as aggravated when exceptional stress and strain of
service is in evidence. However, in certain cases the disease has been
reported after long and frequent spells of service in field/HAA/active
operational area. Such cases can be explained by variable response
exhibited by different individuals to stressful situations. Aggravation
can be considered taking into account the duration of service in active
operational areas and sector profile."
14. We are of the opinion that the service records of the military
personnel shall have substantial evidentiary value and must be
accepted unless any different conclusion has been reached due to
any inaccuracy of the records. The Invaliding Medical Board
examines the individual officer or ex-serviceman and his entire
medical history and records its assessment with regard to the extent
of disability and the attributability to or aggravation by the military
service. This is an admitted position that the assessment made by
the Medical Board is only recommendatory in nature and this
assessment is subject to a review by the competent medical
38
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
authorities. In “Ramavtar”2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
the officer who retired on attaining the age of superannuation or on
completion of his tenure of engagement is entitled to the benefit of
rounding up of disability pension, if he was found suffering from
disease which is attributable to or aggravated by the military
service. The decision of the Invaliding Medical Board must be based
on the consideration of other circumstances such as service
conditions, pre and post-service history, corroboration of the
statement and the value of evidence. In “Rajbir Singh3”, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court takes a note of the decision in “Dharamvir Singh”
and held that the legal position enunciated in “Dharamvir Singh” is
in tune with the Pension Regulations, Entitlement Rules and the
Guidelines issued to the Medical Officers. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court further observed that the provision for payment of disability
pension is a beneficial provision which ought to be interpreted
liberally so as to benefit those who have been sent home with a
disability, at times, even before they completed their tenure in the
Armed Forces. The decision in “Narsingh Yadav”4 is clearly
distinguishable on facts, inasmuch as, Schizophrenia was not
detected at the time of the enrollment of the officer and the same
cannot be said to be arisen or aggravated due to military service.
There may be cases in which the disease was wholly unrelated to
military service but it needs to be affirmatively proved that the
disease has nothing to do with the military service if the disability
pension is sought to be denied.
15. In “Dharamvir Singh”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed
that a member of the military service is presumed to possess a
sound physical and mental condition upon entering the service,
2. Union of India v. Ramavtar & Ors.” : 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1761.
3. Union of India v. Rajbir Singh : (2015) 12 SCC 264.
4. Narsingh Yadav v. Union of India : (2019) 9 SCC 667.
39
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
provided there is no note or record at the time of his entry in the
service. In the event of the discharge of a military personnel from
the service on medical grounds it has to be presumed that any
deterioration in health was due to service. The onus of proof is not
on the officer and he is entitled to derive benefit of any reasonable
doubt. The provisions for pensionary benefits need to be construed
more liberally and the onus to prove that the officer is not entitled
for disability pension is on the employer. It is mandatory for the
Medical Board to follow the guidelines and record a reason why the
disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior
to the entry of the military personnel in service and, that, the
disease had not arisen during his service tenure. In “Sukhvinder
Singh”5, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that a benefit of doubt
must be extended in favor of the member of the military service. In
“Bijender Singh”6, the Hon’ble Supreme Court takes a note of the
decisions in “Dharamvir Singh” and “Rajbir Singh” and held that the
law has by now crystallized that if there is no note or report of the
Medical Board at the time of entry into service that the member
suffered from any particular disease, the presumption would be that
the member got afflicted by the said disease because of military
service.
16. In our opinion, this is not correct to say that the Tribunal
cannot interfere with the findings of the Invalidating Medical Board.
In “Rajumon T.M.”7, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the action
of the military authority shall be unsustainable in the law if not
supported by the reasons for the opinion for discharge of a
serviceman or to deny him the disability pension. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that the onus of proving the disability and
5. Sukhvinder Singh v. Union of India & Ors : (2014) 14 SCC 364.
6. Bijender Singh v. Union of India & Ors : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 895.
7. Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India & Ors. : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1064.
40
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
grounds of denying disability pension would lie heavily on the
authority where the serviceman has been invalided out of service by
the authority. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the
requirement to give reasons by the Medical Board is crucial, critical,
decisive and necessary for the purpose of granting or denying
disability pension and it is not a mere formality but a necessary
material on the basis of which the Pension Sanctioning Authority
has to decide about the grant or refusal of disability pension. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that it is of a paramount
importance that the Medical Board records clear and cogent reasons
in support of their medical opinions because such reasoning would
enhance the transparency and also assist the competent Authority
in adjudicating the matters with greater precision and ensuring that
no prejudice is caused to either party. In paragraph nos. 20 to 25 of
the reported decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: -
20. In our opinion, the requirement to give reasons by the Medical
Board is crucial, critical, decisive and necessary for the purpose of
granting or denying disability pension and it is not a mere formality,
but a necessary material on the basis of which the pension sanctioning
authority has to decide about the grant or refusal of disability pension.
21. As noticed above, it has been specifically provided under Clause
(d) of Regulation 423 as quoted that the question as to whether the dis-
ability is attributable to or aggravated by service or not, will be decided
as regards its medical aspects by the Medical Board and the Medical
Board will specify reasons for their opinion and the question whether
the cause and attendant circumstances can be attributed to service will
be decided by the pension sanctioning authority.
22. Thus, this requirement to give reasons by the Medical Board about
their opinion is in our view absolutely necessary as also required under
Regulation 423(d) for the reason that the fate of the future career of the
serviceman is going to be decided by the opinion of the Medical Board,
which is to be treated as final as regards the cause of disability and
the circumstances in which the disability originated. The continuation
of the service of the concerned serviceman and as to whether he will be
entitled to disability pension is dependent on the opinion of the Medical
Board which is also to be treated as the final one.
41
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
23. Hence, the rules mandate giving of reasons by the Medical Board
while rendering its opinion. The reasons given by the Medical Board
would obviously be the basis for determination by the competent au-
thority whether the serviceman would be discharged from service and
whether he would get disability pension.
24. Accordingly, in our opinion, if the serviceman is discharged from
service or denied the disability pension on the basis of a medical opin-
ion which is devoid of reasons, it would strike at the root of the action
taken by the authority and such action cannot be sustained in law.
25. We, therefore, hold that if any action is taken by the authority for
the discharge of a serviceman and the serviceman is denied disability
pension on the basis of a report of the Medical Board wherein no rea-
sons have been disclosed for the opinion so given, such an action of the
authority will be unsustainable in law.”
17. Pension is not a bounty payable on sweet-will and pleasure of
the government. The right to pension is a valuable right vested in a
government servant”8. In “D. S. Nakara”9, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court observed that a pension scheme must provide that the
pensioners would be able to live free from want, with decency,
independence and self-respect and at a standard equivalent to pre-
retirement level. In paragraph no. 28 of the reported judgment, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that pensions to civil employees of
the government and the defence personnel as administered in India
are compensation for the services rendered by them in the past. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that pension is not only
compensation for loyal services rendered in the past but it has a
broader significance and it is a measure of socio-economic justice
which inheres economic security in the fall of life when physical and
mental prowess is ebbing corresponding to the aging process. The
disability pension provided to the military personnel has a similar
object. The military personnel who is unable to perform his duty
and invalided out from service on medical ground deserves grant of
8. Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar & Ors.: (1971) 2 SCC 330.
9. D. S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India : (1983) 1 SCC 305.
42
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
pension. We do not think that the rule makers intended to deprive
the military personnel of the benefit of the disability pension on the
ground of delay or constitutional disorder or disease even if such
invaliding diseases occurred while in military service. This is not
correct to say that the onus to prove that the disability occurred on
account of military service has shifted to the military personnel. For
example, it would be absolutely impossible for a military personnel
to prove that he suffers from hypertension on account of rigours of
the duty in military service. Just to indicate, hypertension is a
notified disease which is recognized by the Army and Navy a disease
which entitles the military personnel to seek disability pension.
18. This was a duty of the Tribunal to interpret the beneficial
provisions under the Rules in a liberal manner and not to restrict
the benefits flowing thereunder to the military personnel who
suffered invalidation in course of their service. Except some
cosmetic changes, there is no change in the statutory regime under
the Pension Entitlement Rules-2008 or the Navy Regulations for
grant of disability pension to the military personnel. The decision of
the Tribunal is not liable to interference on showing some mistakes
committed by it in the process of adjudication. The High Court in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India may interfere with the decision of an inferior Tribunal where it
is demonstrated that the Tribunal passed an order ignoring the
material and relevant facts or considered such irrelevant materials
which rendered its decision perverse. We do not find any such case
made out by the Union of India in this batch of writ petitions.
19. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we do not find any merit
in these writ petitions which are, accordingly, dismissed.
43
Panchal
WP-1994-2024 & Connected.doc
20. Interim order dated 15th February 2024 passed in Original
Side Writ Petition No. 4362 of 2024 and other similar orders passed
in connected matters shall stand vacated.
(GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
Digitally signed
by PRAVIN
DASHARATH
PRAVIN PANDIT
DASHARATH
Date:
PANDIT 2026.01.27
09:53:59
+0530
44
Panchal
Checking your session…