Holding

The authority bears the burden of proving non‑attributability, and a Medical Board’s opinion must be reasoned; absent such reasons, the denial of disability pension is invalid and the pension must be granted.

Summary

The appellant, a former Indian Army sepoy, was medically invalided and discharged after being diagnosed with schizophrenia, with the Medical Board concluding the disorder was a constitutional personality disorder unrelated to his service. He sought a disability pension, but the pension authority rejected his claim based on the Board’s opinion, which lacked any reasons. The Supreme Court examined the statutory framework governing disability pensions, emphasizing that a causal link between the disability and military service must be established and that the burden of proof lies on the authority when the serviceman is not the one seeking discharge. The Court held that a Medical Board’s opinion must be supported by reasons as mandated by Regulation 423(d); an unreasoned opinion cannot justify denial of pension. Consequently, the Court set aside the earlier orders and directed the respondents to grant the appellant disability pension with immediate effect, limiting arrears to the last three years.

Issues considered

Whether the burden of proof for disability and denial of pension lies on the serviceman or the concerned authority.
Whether a causal link between service conditions and the disability is required to grant a disability pension.
Whether the nature of the service area (peace vs. field) affects attributability of the disability.
Whether a Medical Board’s opinion lacking reasons can be relied upon to deny disability pension.

Legislation cited

Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961s. Appendix II, s. Regulation 173
Regulations for Medical Services for Armed Forces, 1983s. Regulation 423

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether in case of discharge of a serviceman from the Indian Army, on the ground of medical invalidation and consequent denial of disability pension, the burden of proof lies on the serviceman or the concerned department? Whether the existence of a causal link between the disability in order to claim disability pension or the nature of the service area? Whether a non-reasoned order of the Medical board be relied upon to grant or deny of disability pension? Headnotes† Petitioner, after serving in Indian Army as a sepoy for 9 years, was discharged on ground

Subjects

SchizophreniaDisability pensionIndian armyMedical boardMedical opinionDischargeMedical invalidationAttributabilityService conditionsPeace stationsField serviceConstitutional personality disorderReasoned opinionLiberal interpretation

Judgment

[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1279 : 2025 INSC 644

Rajumon T.M.
v.
Union of India & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 998 of 2025)
07 May 2025
[Abhay S. Oka and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether in case of discharge of a serviceman from the Indian
Army, on the ground of medical invalidation and consequent denial
of disability pension, the burden of proof lies on the serviceman
or the concerned department?
Whether the existence of a causal link between the service
conditions and the disability in order to claim disability pension or
the nature of the service area?
Whether a non-reasoned order of the Medical board be relied upon
to grant or deny of disability pension?

Headnotes†
Petitioner, after serving in Indian Army as a sepoy for 9
years, was discharged on ground of medical invalidation as
per medical board’s (“Board”) opinion for having developed
Schizophrenia after being 5 years into the service – Board
opined – During the onset of the said disease, Petitioner
was serving at a peace station; hence the said disease was
not attributable to or aggravated by the military service
conditions – Petitioner challenged the said discharge before
first appellate committee and subsequently before the Armed
Forces Tribunal but it was unsuccessful – Being aggrieved,
Petitioner approached Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Proving causal linkage between service conditions and
disability is must for seeking disability pension; nature of
service area immaterial:
Held: The principles governing grant of disability pension are as
follows: (i) a causal connection between the disablement and
military service must be proved for its attributability to be considered;
* Author
1280 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(ii) all evidence (direct and circumstantial), material on record must
be considered in this respect; (iii) benefit of reasonable doubt will
be given to the claimant and must be construed more liberally in
case of field service; (iv) type of service area i.e., peace service
area or field/active service area is immaterial in determining the
attributability of the disability on service conditions; (v) a disease
causing discharge will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in
service if no note of it was made at the time of the individual’s
acceptance for service in the armed forces; (vi) if as per medical
opinion of medial board / medical officer (backed by reasons),
disease could not be detected on medical examination before
acceptance for service, the disease will not be deemed to have
arisen during service; (vii) the opinion of the Medical Board/medical
officer, regarding actual cause of the disability or death and the
circumstances in which it originated will be regarded as final; (viii)
question of attributability to service and attendant circumstances
will be decided by the pension sanctioning authority; and (ix)
CO will furnish concerned medical reports to the medical officer/
medical board as the case may be – Tribunal rightly culled out
the legal principles from various judgments of this Court but the
application thereof to the facts of this case was improper – As
per Regulation 173 read with Appendix II (particularly clause 4)
of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 and Regulation 423
of the Regulations for Medical Services for Armed Forces 1983.
[Paras 9-17]

Medical Board’s opinion was not backed by reasons and thus
was arbitrary and against mandatory applicable provisions:
Held: As per the original medical records, Petitioner was not
suffering from Schizophrenia when he joined the service – Some
parts of Petitioner’s medical records were left blank and hence
the board’s conclusion that Petitioner’s disease was constitutional
personality disorder is erroneous because the board did not
consider the medical records in the first place – The Board also
failed to provide reasons for its opinion that Petitioner’s disease
was a constitutional personality disorder – Providing reasons
was “crucial, critical, decisive and necessary” rather than being
a formality in terms of Regulation 423(d) as pension sanctioning
authority had to determined grant/denial of disability pension based
on such reasons as board’s opinion was final – In present case,
board’s opinion was arbitrary for being devoid of reasons – Liberal
approach must be adopted while interpreting provisions of disability
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1281

Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India & Ors.

pension (Reliance placed on Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya v. Distt.
Development Officer, Dahod, (2022) 16 SCC 343 – Moreover, a
Schizophrenia serviceman faces additional challenges in proving
a causal linkage given the impairment caused to his cognitive
skills by the said disease (Reliance placed on Veer Pal Singh v.
Ministry of Defence, (2013) 8 SCC 83. [Paras 18-31]

Burden of proof as to disability and ground of denial of
disability pension is on the concerned authority:
Held: In present case, the authority discharged Petitioner based
on the condition of the Petitioner, instead of Petitioner seeking for
discharge from service and thus burden of proof as to disability
and ground of denial of disability pension was on the concerned
authority, which they failed to prove – The Appeal was allowed
and the authority was directed to grant disability pension and other
benefits to Petitioner with immediate effect – No arrears for invalid
pension were granted except for last three years. [Paras 32-39]

Case Law Cited
Union of India & Ors. v. Keshar Singh [2007] 5 SCR 408 : (2007)
12 SCC 675; Union of India & Ors. v. Surinder Singh Rathore
[2008] 4 SCR 409 : (2008) 5 SCC 747; Secretary, Ministry of
Defence and Ors. v. A.V. Damodaran (Dead) through LRs. and
Others [2009] 13 SCR 416 : (2009) 9 SCC 140; Union of India &
Ors. v. Jujhar Singh [2011] 8 SCR 258 : (2011) 7 SCC 735; Union
of India and Anr. v. Talwinder Singh [2012] 5 SCR 437 : (2012) 5
SCC 480 – referred to.
Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya v. Distt. Development Officer, Dahod
[2022] 5 SCR 760 : (2022) 16 SCC 343; Veer Pal Singh v. Ministry
of Defence [2013] 10 SCR 579 : (2013) 8 SCC 83 – relied on.

List of Acts
Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961.

List of Keywords
Schizophrenia; Disability pension; Indian army; Medical board;
Medical opinion; Discharge; Medical invalidation; Aggravated;
attributable; Service conditions; Peace stations; Field service;
Constitutional personality disorder; Opinion; Reason; Conclusion;
Liberal view.
1282 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 998 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.01.2013 of the Armed
Forces Tribunal in OA No. 100 of 2011

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Thomas P. Joseph, Sr. Adv., Tom Joseph, Dr. Duvvada Ramesh.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G., Shashank Bajpai, Shyam Gopal,
Ms. Rekha Pandey, Chinmayee Chandra, Rajan Kumar Chourasia,
Kartik Dey, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Akshat Kaushik.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.

The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and
final order dated 17.01.2013 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal,
Regional Bench, Kochi in OA No.100 of 2011 by which the claim
of the appellant for grant of disabilities pension was denied to the
appellant.
2. Only the relevant facts in brief for the purpose of deciding this appeal
may be adverted to.
3. The appellant, Rajumon T.M. No.13978552W was enrolled in the
Indian Army on 17.11.1988 as a sepoy and after serving more than
9 (nine) years he was discharged from service on being diagnosed
with Schizophrenia. His discharge on medical invalidation was based
on the opinion of the Invalidating Medical Board held on 30 March,
1998 at the Command Hospital, Western Command, Chandimandir
which found that the onset of the invalidating disease was in August
1993 during which period the appellant had served in a peace station
and that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by
military service and the said disease of the appellant was constitutional
in nature and not connected with the service. The disability was
assessed at 30 percent for two years. Accordingly, the appellant’s
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1283

Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India & Ors.

claim for disability pension was rejected by the CCDA (Pension),
Allahabad vide letter dated 04.01.1999 which was communicated
to the appellant by the AMC Records vide letter dated 15.01.1999.
4. The said rejection was challenged before the first appellate committee
which was dismissed. The appellant, thereafter, made an unsuccessful
attempt for redressal of his grievances through a Member of the
Parliament. The appellant was informed by the Ministry of Defence
vide communication dated 07.11.2009 that the matter had already
been considered and his appeal against rejection of disability pension
claim was turned down earlier by the competent authority. He was
also informed that he had not preferred the second appeal after his
first appeal was dismissed.
5. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his claim for disability pension,
the appellant unsuccessfully approached the Armed Forces Tribunal,
Original Bench at Kochi in OA No.100 of 2011 which was heard with
other applicants seeking similar reliefs.
6. Before the Armed Forces Tribunal it was pleaded by the appellant
that he had been found medically fit at the time of enrolment and
nothing adverse was noted at that point of time and the appellant
became afflicted with the said disease during his service which had
nothing to do with the family conditions and since the said disease
developed in course of his service, he was entitled to the disability
pension.
7. The respondents contested the claim of the appellant before the
Armed Forces Tribunal by contending that the appellant had been
posted at peace station at the time of onset of the disease and being
deployed in peace stations, and it could not have contributed to the
said illness nor can the service said to have aggravated the disease,
which was confirmed by the Medical Board on examination of the
appellant as mentioned above. Further, it was contended that nothing
was brought on record to contradict the finding of the Medical Board
and as such the claim of the appellant could not be entertained.
8. In support of the claim of the respondents, a number of decisions of
this Court were relied upon namely; Union of India & Ors. vs. Keshar
Singh, (2007) 12 SCC 675; Union of India & Ors. vs. Surinder
Singh Rathore, (2008) 5 SCC 747; Secretary, Ministry of Defence
and Ors. vs. A.V.Damodaran (Dead) through LRs. and others,
1284 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(2009) 9 SCC 140; Union of India & Ors. vs. Jujhar Singh, (2011)
7 SCC 735; Union of India and Anr. vs. Talwinder Singh, (2012)
5 SCC 480, No. 14666828M EX CFN Narsingh Yadav vs. Union
of India & Ors. (2019) 9 SCC 667, and the decision of Kerala High
Court in Baby vs. Union of India, 2003 (3) KLT 362 (FB).
9. The Tribunal, on consideration of the aforesaid decisions and relevant
Rules made the following observations in para 17 of the impugned
judgment, which are reproduced herebelow:-
“17. The legal portion as emerged out from the aforesaid
decisions is shortlisted as follows :
(i) The disability pension is payable only when the
disability has occurred due to wound, injury or
disease which is attributable to military service or
existed before or arose during military service and
has been and remains aggravated during the military
service and recorded as such by the service medical
authorities.
(ii) The opinion of the Medical Board should be given
primacy in deciding cases of disability pension. In
case the Medical Authorities record the specific
finding that the disability was neither attributable
to nor aggravated by the military service, the court
should not ignore such a finding for the reason that
Medical Board is specialised authority composed of
expert medical doctors and it is a final authority to
give opinion regarding attributability and aggravation
of the disability due to the military service and the
conditions of service resulting in the disablement of
the individual. As such, the opinion of the Medical
Board must be given due weight, value and credence.
(iii) When an individual is physically fit at the time of
enrolment and no note regarding adverse physical
factor is made at the time of entry into service and
if the individual is discharged before the completion
of full tenure on account of his physical disability,
the initial onus of proving that the disability is not
attributable to the Military Service shall be on the
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1285

Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India & Ors.

authority. However, in the cases where it is found on
perusal of the available evidence that the individual
had withheld relevant information or that the service
conditions were not such as could have resulted in
physical disability, the onus shall shift to the claimant.
(iv) The disease which has led to the individuals discharge
will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in the course
of service if no note of it was made at the time of
individual’s acceptance for military service. However,
the above deeming fiction is not available to the
individual if the medical opinion, for the reasons
to be recorded, hold the disease could not have
been detected on medical examination prior to the
claimant’s acceptance to the service.
(v) A person claiming disability pension must establish
that the disease or injury suffered by him bears a
causal connection with the military service.
(vi) The direct and circumstantial evidence of the case
is to be taken into account and the benefit of doubt
if any is to be given to the individual.
(vii) A liberal approach is to be adopted in the matter of
services rendered in the field areas.
10. By adopting the aforesaid principles derived from the decisions relied
upon, the Tribunal rejected the claim of the appellant as follows :
“20. As regards the claim for disability pension by
Rajumon.T.M., (the applicant in OA No.100 of 2011), it
is on record that the onset of the disease was in August/
September 1993, during which period he was serving at
Nasirabad, which is a peace station. It is also on record that
the applicant had never served any operational area, high
altitude or snow bound area. The Medical Board has opined
that the disability of the applicant was a constitutional
personality disorder. In our considered view, the disability
did not occur to the applicant due to the conditions of the
service. Therefore, the opinion of the Medical Board based
on the applicant’s physical and clinical examination, his
past history and apparent symptoms, is liable to be relied
1286 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

upon, and accordingly, it is held that the disability of the
applicant was neither attributable to nor aggravated by
military service.”
11. We have heard the parties and gone through the records.
12. We are in agreement with the legal propositions emanating out of the
decisions of this Court as culled out by the Tribunal as reproduced
above. However, while applying the same in the facts of the present
case, we find certain distinguishing features in the present case which
persuaded us to arrive at a different conclusion from that of the Tribunal.
13. This Court in the aforesaid decisions of Keshar Singh (supra);
Surinder Singh Rathore (supra); A.V.Damodaran (supra); Jujhar
Singh (supra); Talwinder Singh (supra) had examined Regulation
173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, which deals with
the primary conditions of grant of disability pension which provide, inter
alia, that the disability pension would be granted if it is attributable
to or aggravated by the military service. The said Regulation 173 is
accordingly reproduced herein as below:
“173. Primary conditions for the grant of disability
pension. — Unless otherwise specifically provided a
disability pension may be granted to an individual who
is invalided from service on account of a disability which
is attributable to or aggravated by military service and is
assessed at 20 per cent or above.
14. The question as to whether the disability is attributable to or
aggravated by military service is to be determined as per Appendix II
to the said Regulations.
Relevant portions in Appendix II read as follows:
“2. Disablement or death shall be accepted as due to
military service provided it is certified that—
(a) The disablement is due to wound, injury or disease
which—
(i) is attributable to military service; or
(ii) existed before or arose during military service and has
been and remains aggravated thereby;
(b) the death was due to or hastened by—
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1287

Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India & Ors.

(i) a wound, injury or disease which was attributable to
military service, or
(ii) the aggravation by military service of a wound, injury
or disease which existed before or arose during military
service.
Note.—The rule also covers cases of death after discharge/
invaliding from service.
3. There must be a causal connection between disablement
or death and military service for attributability or aggravation
to be conceded.
4. In deciding on the issue of entitlement all the evidence,
both direct and circumstantial, will be taken into account
and the benefit or reasonable doubt will be given to the
claimant. This benefit will be given more liberally to the
claimant in field service case.”
15. Thus, the aforesaid Regulation 173 read with Appendix II makes it
very clear that disability must be attributable to or aggravated by
military service for purposes of grant of disability pension and what
amounts to disability has been elaborated in Appendix II of the
Regulations as quoted above. The Appendix II clarifies that there
must be a casual connection between the disablement or death and
military service for attributability to be considered.
Clause 4 of the aforesaid Appendix II further provides that in
deciding on the issue of entitlement, all the evidence, both direct
and circumstantial, will be taken into account and the benefit or
reasonable doubt will be given to the claimant and this benefit will
be given more liberally to the claimant in field service case.
16. As to how a disability can be attributed to service has been further
explained clearly in Regulation 423 of the Regulations for Medical
Services for Armed Forces 1983, which has been also referred to by
the Tribunal and by this Court in the above-mentioned cases, which
is reproduced herein below for easy reference:
“423. Attributability to service.—(a) For the purpose of
determining whether the cause of a disability or death is
or is not attributable to service, it is immaterial whether the
cause giving rise to the disability or death occurred in an
area declared to be a field service/active service area or
1288 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

under normal peace conditions. It is, however, essential
to establish whether the disability or death bore a casual
connection with the service conditions. All evidence, both
direct and circumstantial, will be taken into account and
benefit of reasonable doubt, if any, will be given to the
individual. The evidence to be accepted as reasonable
doubt, for the purpose of these instructions, should be of
a degree of cogency, which though not reaching certainty,
nevertheless carry the high degree of probability. In this
connection, it will be remembered that proof beyond
reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond a shadow
of doubt. If the evidence is so strong against an individual
as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour, which
can be dismissed with the sentence ‘of course it is possible
but not in the least probable’ the case is proved beyond
reasonable doubt. If on the other hand, the evidence be so
evenly balanced as to render impracticable a determinate
conclusion one way or the other, then the case would be
one in which the benefit of doubt could be given more
liberally to the individual, in cases occurring in field service/
active service areas.
(b) The cause of a disability or death resulting from wound
or injury, will be regarded as attributable to service if the
wound/injury was sustained during the actual performance
of ‘duty’ in armed forces. In case of injuries which were self-
inflicted or due to an individual’s own serious negligence
or misconduct, the Board will also comment how far
the disability resulted from self-infliction, negligence or
misconduct.
(c) The cause of a disability or death resulting from a
disease will be regarded as attributable to service when it
is established that the disease arose during service and the
conditions and circumstances of duty in the armed forces
determined and contributed to the onset of the disease.
Cases, in which it is established that service conditions did
not determine or contribute to the onset of the disease but
influenced the subsequent course of the disease, will be
regarded as aggravated by the service. A disease which
has led to an individual’s discharge or death will ordinarily
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1289

Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India & Ors.

be deemed to have arisen in service if no note of it was
made at the time of the individual’s acceptance for service
in the armed forces. However, if medical opinion holds,
for reasons to be stated that the disease could not have
been detected on medical examination prior to acceptance
for service, the disease will not be deemed to have arisen
during service.
(d) The question, whether a disability or death is attributable
to or aggravated by service or not, will be decided as
regards its medical aspects by a Medical Board or by the
medical officer who signs the death certificate. The Medical
Board/medical officer will specify reasons for their/his
opinion. The opinion of the Medical Board/medical officer,
insofar as it relates to the actual cause of the disability or
death and the circumstances in which it originated will be
regarded as final. The question whether the cause and the
attendant circumstances can be attributed to service will,
however, be decided by the pension sanctioning authority.
(e) To assist the medical officer who signs the death
certificate or the Medical Board in the case of an invalid,
the CO unit will furnish a report on:
(i) AFMS F-81 in all cases other than those due to
injuries.
(ii) IAFY-2006 in all cases of injuries other than battle
injuries.
(f) In cases where award of disability pension or
reassessment of disabilities is concerned, a Medical Board
is always necessary and the certificate of a single medical
officer will not be accepted except in case of stations
where it is not possible or feasible to assemble a regular
Medical Board for such purposes. The certificate of a
single medical officer in the latter case will be furnished
on a Medical Board form and countersigned by the ADMS
(Army)/DMS (Navy)/DMS (Air).”
17. A careful examination of Regulation 423 of the Regulation for
Medical Services for Armed Forces would reveal the following
aspects:
1290 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

1. It is immaterial whether the cause giving rise to the disability or
death occurred in an area declared to be a field service/active
service area or under normal peace conditions.
2. It is, however, essential to establish that the disability or death
bore a casual connection with the service conditions.
3. All evidence, both direct and circumstantial, will be taken into
account and benefit of reasonable doubt, if any, will be given
to the individual.
4. A disease which has led to an individual’s discharge or death
will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service if no note
of it was made at the time of the individual’s acceptance for
service in the armed forces.
5. However, if the medical opinion holds, for reasons to be stated
that the disease could not have been detected on medical
examination prior to acceptance for service, the disease will
not be deemed to have arisen during service.
6. The question, whether a disability or death is attributable to
or aggravated by service or not, will be decided as regards its
medical aspects by a Medical Board or by the medical officer
who signs the certificate. The Medical Board/medical officer
will specify reasons for their/his opinion.
7. The opinion of the Medical Board/medical officer, insofar as it
relates to the actual cause of the disability or death and the
circumstances in which it originated will be regarded as final.
8. The question whether the cause and the attendant circumstances
can be attributed to service will, however, be decided by the
pension sanctioning authority.
9. To assist the medical officer who signs the death certificate or
the Medical Board in the case of an invalid, the CO unit will
furnish a report on:
(i) AFMS F-81 : in all cases other than those due to injuries.
(ii) IAFY 2006 : in all cases of injuries other than battle injuries.
18. Having kept the aforesaid aspects in mind, we have examined
the records, more particularly the original records of the Medical
Board Proceedings produced before us, a copy of which is also
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1291

Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India & Ors.

annexed as Annexure R-5 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of
the respondents.
A careful perusal of the aforesaid medical proceedings reveals the
following :
(i) The details of the field/operational service have been
mentioned in the said proceedings of the Medical Board
(as per Form AFMSF-16) as peace stations as follows:

Field Operational/Overseas service: Giving dates and places
From To Place Peace Field
AMC C &
17 Nov 88 21 May 90 Peace --
S LKC
MH
22 May 90 01 May 94 Peace --
Nasirabad
323 Pa
05 May 94 10 Dec 96 Peace --
Amb
MH
11 Dec 96 To date Peace --
Patiala

It is to be noted that under Regulation 423 (a) referred to above,
it is mentioned that for the purpose of determining whether the
cause of disability is attributable to the service, it is immaterial
that the cause giving rise to the disability occurred in an area
declared to be field service/active service area or under normal
peace conditions.
(ii) In para 2 of Part I of the said Form, the particulars of the
disease from which the appellant was suffering from are
mentioned as follows:

PART I
Illness, wound, First Started Where Approximate
injury treated treated dates
Date Place
and periods
treated
SCHIZOPHRENIA 20.09.93 Ahmedabad September 93
(295) Nasirabad to January 94

(iii) In para 3 and para 4 of Part I of the Form, the following
entries have been made about the negative answers to
the queries:
1292 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

3. Did you suffer from any disability mentioned in question No
2 or anything like it before joining the Armed forces?
If so, give details and date.
4. Give details of any incidents during your service which No
you think caused or made your di8sability worse.

(iv) Coming to para 5 and para 6 of Part I of the Form, the
following entries have been made:

5. In case of wound or injury state how they happened No
and whether or not (a)Medical Board or Court of Injury
was held
(b) Injury Reported was submitted
6. Any other information you wish to give about your health No

The aforesaid entries are, therefore, a clear acknowledgement
of the fact that the appellant was not suffering from the disease
of Schizophrenia when he entered the service. Thus, it would
be deemed that this disease arose while in service as provided
under Regulation 423 (e). In fact, the absence of finding that
the appellant was suffering from the disease before entering
service is confirmed by the subsequent entries made in Parts II
and III of the Form as regards his past medical history.
(v) Coming to Part II of the Medical Board proceedings of
Form AFMSF-16, the following entries have been made:

PART II
Disabilities Date of Place and unit
Origin where serving at the
time
Schizophrenia (Old) I MB 20.09.93 MH Nasirabad
2. Clinical details:
Note: (a) Give the salient facts of: -
(i) Personal and relevant family history - (Blank)
(ii) Specialist report and - (Blank)
(iii) Treatment - (Blank)
(b) State present condition in detail - (Blank)
(c) In this statement and in answering question in Part-III
the Board will differentiate carefully between the individual’s
statement and the evidence recorded in the medical
documents - (Blank)
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1293

Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India & Ors.

It may be noted that the aforesaid entries in Part II are
devoid of any details, and these have been left blank in
the Form, though these are required to be mentioned in
the Form. It thus clearly shows that the medical history of
the appellant is not recorded. Hence, it can be said that
the Medical Board had not considered the medical history
of the appellant before coming to the conclusion that the
disease the appellant was suffering from is constitutional
and did not arise during service.
(vii) Coming to Part III of the Form AFMSF-16, the following
entries are made:

PARTI III
1. Did the disability/ies exist before entering service? (Blank)
2. (a) In respect of each disability the Medical Board on the
evidence before & will express its views as to whether:
(i) It is attributable to service during peace or under field
service conditions:
(ii) It has been aggravated thereby and remains so: or (i)
& - (iii) - Yes, (ii) NO
(i) & (iii) - No it is connected with service
(iii) It is not connected with service (ii) Yes, it is not connected
with service

The Board should state fully the reasons in regard
to each disability on which its opinion is based.
(Emphasis added)

Disability A B C
Schizophrenia No No Yes
(Old) 1 MB

(b) In respect of each disability shown as NA
attributable under A, the Board should state
fully, the specific condition and period in
service which caused the disability.
(c) in respect of each disability shown as NA
aggravated under B, the Board should
state fully
1294 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

i. The specific condition and period
in service which aggravated the
disability.
ii. Whether the effects of such aggravation
still persist
iii. If the answer (ii) is the affirmative,
whether effect of aggravation ill persist
for a material period.
(d) In the case of a disability under ‘C’ the CONSTITUTIONAL
Board should state what exactly in their PERSONALITY
opinion in the cause thereof. DISORDER
3. (a)Was the disability attributable to the No
individual’s own negligence or misconduct?
If so, in what way?
(b) If not attributable, was it aggravated by No
negligence or misconduct? If so, in what
way and to what percentage of the total
disablement?
(c) Has the individual refused to undergo No
operation/treatment? If so, individual’s
reasons will be recorded.
4. What is present degree of disablement as compared with a healthy
person of the same age and sex?

Disability (As Percentage of Probable Composite
numbered in disablement duration of assessment
question I, Part this degree of (all
II) disablement disabilities)
Schizophrenia 30% (Thirty 02 years (Two 30 % (Thirty
(Old) 1 MB percent) Years) percent)

19. Perusal of the aforesaid entries made in Part III of the Form
AFMSF-16 reveals that no reasons have been assigned at all as
regards the nature of disability on which the opinion of the Medical
Board is based that the appellant was suffering from constitutional
personality disorder, though it has been specifically mentioned therein
that the Medical Board should state fully the reasons with regard to
the disability on which the opinion of the Medical Board is based.
20. In our opinion, the requirement to give reasons by the Medical Board
is crucial, critical, decisive and necessary for the purpose of granting
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1295

Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India & Ors.

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
disability 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.
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
authority 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
opinion 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
reasons have been disclosed for the opinion so given, such an action
of the authority will be unsustainable in law.
26. In the present case, as noticed from the entries made in Part III of
Form AFSMF-16, no reasons have been given by the Medical Board
for their opinion that the appellant was suffering from Schizophrenia
1296 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

which is of a constitutional personality disorder and all the relevant
columns have been left blank.
In our view, the finding given in Para 2(d) of Part II by the Medical
Board is merely an opinion or conclusion without assigning any
reasons as to how the Medical Board has come to the aforesaid
conclusion that the disability of the appellant is a constitutional
personality disorder. There is a difference between the “conclusion”
or “opinion”, and “reasons” to support such a conclusion or opinion.
The reasons have to be separately mentioned for the conclusion
arrived at by the Medical Board. The bare conclusion arrived by the
Medical Board cannot treated as the reasons for discharge of the
serviceman and denial of invalid pension within the meaning of the
Regulations referred to above.
27. When we refer to the entries made under Part II of Form AFSMF-16,
it is also noticed that said Part II too is devoid of clinical details as
regards personal and relevant family history, specialist report and
treatment. Therefore, we are of the view that in absence of the said
particulars which are required to be recorded or mentioned which
would reveal the medical history of the appellant, the opinion given
by the Medical Board in Part III of the Form AFMSF-16 that the
disease is a constitutional personality disorder cannot be sustained
being violative of the mandate contained in Regulation 423 (d) of
the Regulation. In legal terms, the opinion of the Medical Board not
being based on any reason or material is to be treated as arbitrary.
In absence of the ground and materials to arrive at a particular
conclusion, such a decision of the Medical Board would be considered
as having arrived at without application of mind.
28. It is to be noted that it has been provided under Regulation
423(d) referred to above that whether the cause and the attending
circumstances can be attributed to service will be decided by the
pension sanction authority. In the present case, the pension sanction
authority has declined to grant the disability pension based on the
opinion of the Medical Board by recording that the appellant has
been invalidated out of the service on account of a constitutional
personality disorder, as also evident from the rejection of appeal
vide order dated 22.05.2000 passed by First Appellate Committee.
29. We are mindful of the fact that we are dealing with the case of
disability due to Schizophrenia which impairs the cognitive capacity
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1297

Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India & Ors.

of the person, which naturally will affect the ability of the appellant
to properly advance his own cause relating to the cause and
circumstance of the illness before the authority. This Court has been
cognizant of the debilitating effects of Schizophrenia in Veer Pal
Singh v. Ministry of Defence, (2013) 8 SCC 83 in the following
words:
“12. In Merriam Webster Dictionary “schizophrenia” has
been described as a psychotic disorder characterised
by loss of contact with the environment, by noticeable
deterioration in the level of functioning in everyday life,
and by disintegration of personality expressed as disorder
of feeling, thought (as in delusions), perception (as in
hallucinations), and behaviour — called also dementia
praecox; schizophrenia is a chronic, severe, and disabling
brain disorder that has affected people throughout
history.
13. The National Institute of Mental Health, USA has
described “schizophrenia” in the following words:
“Schizophrenia is a chronic, severe, and disabling
brain disorder that has affected people throughout
history. People with the disorder may hear voices
other people don’t hear. They may believe other
people are reading their minds, controlling their
thoughts, or plotting to harm them. This can terrify
people with the illness and make them withdrawn or
extremely agitated. People with schizophrenia may
not make sense when they talk. They may sit for
hours without moving or talking. Sometimes people
with schizophrenia seem perfectly fine until they talk
about what they are really thinking. Families and
society are affected by schizophrenia too. Many
people with schizophrenia have difficulty holding a
job or caring for themselves, so they rely on others
for help. Treatment helps relieve many symptoms of
schizophrenia, but most people who have the disorder
cope with symptoms throughout their lives. However,
many people with schizophrenia can lead rewarding
and meaningful lives in their communities.”
1298 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

14. Some of the symptoms of schizophrenia are:
14.1. Positive symptoms: Positive symptoms are psychotic
behaviour not seen in healthy people. People with positive
symptoms often “lose touch” with reality. These symptoms
can come and go. Sometimes they are severe and at
other times hardly noticeable, depending on whether
the individual is receiving treatment. They include the
following:
Hallucinations.—“Voices” are the most common type of
hallucination in schizophrenia. Hallucinations include
seeing people or objects that are not there, smelling odours
that no one else detects, and feeling things like invisible
fingers touching their bodies when no one is near.
Delusions.—The person believes delusions even after other
people prove that the beliefs are not true or logical. They
may also believe that people on television are directing
special messages to them, or that radio stations are
broadcasting their thoughts aloud to others. Sometimes
they believe they are someone else, such as a famous
historical figure. They may have paranoid delusions and
believe that others are trying to harm them.
Thought disorders.—are unusual or dysfunctional ways
of thinking. One form of thought disorder is called
“disorganised thinking”. This is when a person has
trouble organising his or her thoughts or connecting them
logically, a person with a thought disorder might make up
meaningless words, or “neologisms”.
Movement disorders.—may appear as agitated body
movements. A person with a movement disorder may
repeat certain motions over and over. In the other extreme,
a person may become catatonic. Catatonia is a state in
which a person does not move and does not respond to
others. Catatonia is rare today, but it was more common
when treatment for schizophrenia was not available.
14.2. Negative symptoms: Negative symptoms are
associated with disruptions to normal emotions and
behaviours. These symptoms are harder to recognise as
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1299

Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India & Ors.

part of the disorder and can be mistaken for depression or
other conditions. These symptoms include the following:
(i) “Flat effect” (a person’s face does not move or he or
she talks in a dull or monotonous voice).
(ii) Lack of pleasure in everyday life.
(iii) Lack of ability to begin and sustain planned activities.
(iv) Speaking little, even when forced to interact.
15. In Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (24th
Edn., 2011) the following varieties of schizophrenia have
been noticed:
Simple Schizophrenia.—The illness begins in early
adolescence. There is a gradual loss of interest in the
outside world, from which the person withdraws. There is an
all round impairment of mental faculties and he emotionally
becomes flat and apathetic. He loses interest in his best
friends who are few in number and gives up his hobbies.
He has conflicts about sex, particularly masturbation.
He loses all ambition and drifts along in life, swelling the
rank of chronically unemployed. Complete disintegration
of personality does not occur, but when it does, it occurs
after a number of years.
Hebephrenia.—Hebephrenia occurs at an earlier age than
either the katatonic or the paranoid variety. Disordered
thinking is the outstanding characteristic of this kind of
schizophrenia. There is great incoherence of thought,
periods of wild excitement occur and there are illusions and
hallucinations. Delusions which are bizarre in nature, are
frequently present. Often, there is impulsive and senseless
conduct as though in response to their hallucination or
delusions. Ultimately the whole personality may completely
disintegrate.
Katatonia.—Katatonia is the condition in which the period
of excitement alternates with that of katatonic stupor. The
patient is in a state of wild excitement, is destructive, violent
and abusive. He may impulsively assault anyone without
the slightest provocation. Homicidal or suicidal attempts
1300 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

may be made. Auditory hallucinations frequently occur,
which may be responsible for their violent behaviour.
Sometimes, they destroy themselves because they hear
God’s voice commanding them to destroy themselves.
This phase may last from a few hours to a few days or
weeks, followed by stage of stupor.
The katatonic stupor begins with a lack of interest, lack of
concentration and general apathy. He is negative, refuses
to take food or medicines and to carry out his daily routine
activities like brushing his teeth, taking bath or change his
clothes…. The activities are so very limited that he may
confine himself in one place and assume one posture
however uncomfortable, for hours together without getting
fatigued. His face is expressionless and his gaze vacant….
They may understand clearly everything that is going on
around them, and sometime without warning and without
any apparent cause, they suddenly attack any person
standing nearby.
Paranoid Schizophrenia, paranoia and paraphrenia.—
Paranoia is now regarded as a mild form of paranoid
schizophrenia. The main characteristic of this illness
is a well-elaborated delusional system in a personality
that is otherwise well preserved. The delusions are of a
persecutory type. The true nature of the illness may go
unrecognised for a long time because the personality is
well preserved, and some of these paranoiacs may pass off
as social reformers or founders of queer pseudo-religious
sects. The classical picture is rare and generally takes a
chronic course.
Paranoid schizophrenia, in the vast majority of cases,
starts in the fourth decade and develops insidiously.
Suspiciousness is the characteristic symptom of the early
stage. Ideas of reference occur, which gradually develop
into delusions of persecution. Auditory hallucinations follow
which in the beginning, start as sounds or noises in the ears,
but become fixed and definite, to lead the patient to believe
that he is persecuted by some unknown person or some
superhuman agency. He believes that his food is being
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1301

Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India & Ors.

poisoned, some noxious gases are blown into his room and
people are plotting against him to ruin him. Disturbances
of general sensation give rise to hallucinations, which
are attributed to the effects of hypnotism, electricity,
wireless telegraphy or atomic agencies. The patient gets
very irritated and excited owing to these painful and
disagreeable hallucinations and delusions.
Since so many people are against him and are interested
in his ruin, he comes to believe that he must be a very
important man. The nature of delusions thus, may change
from persecutory to grandiose type. He entertains delusions
of grandeur, power and wealth, and generally conducts
himself in a haughty and overbearing manner. The patient
usually retains his money and orientation and does not
show signs of insanity, until the conversation is directed to
the particular type of delusion from which he is suffering.
When delusions affect his behaviour, he is often a source
of danger to himself and others.
The name paraphrenia has been given to those suffering from
paranoid psychosis who, in spite of various hallucinations
and more or less systemised delusions, retain their
personality in a relatively intact state. Generally, paraphrenia
begins later in life than the other paranoid psychosis.
Schizo-affective psychosis.—Schizo-affective psychosis
is an atypical type of schizophrenia, in which there are
moods or affect disturbances unlike other varieties of
schizophrenia, where there is blunting or flattening of affect.
Attacks of elation or depression, unmotivated rage, anxiety
and panic occur in this form of schizophrenic illness.
Pseudo-neurotic schizophrenia.—Schizophrenia may start
with overwhelmingly neurotic symptoms, which are so
prominent that in the early stages, it may be diagnosed as
neurosis. When schizophrenia begins in an obsessional
personality, it may for a long time remain disguised as an
apparently obsessional illness.
16. F.C. Redlich and Daniel X. Freedman in their book
titled The Theory and Practice of Psychiatry (1966 Edn.)
observed:
1302 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

“Some schizophrenic reactions, which we call psychoses,
may be relatively mild and transient; others may not
interfere too seriously with many aspects of everyday
living…. (p. 252)
Are the characteristic remissions and relapses expressions
of endogenous processes, or are they responses to
psychosocial variables, or both? Some patients recover,
apparently completely, when such recovery occurs without
treatment we speak of spontaneous remission. The term
need not imply an independent endogenous process; it is
just as likely that the spontaneous remission is a response
to non-deliberate but nonetheless favourable psychosocial
stimuli other than specific therapeutic activity….” (p. 465)
(emphasis supplied)

30. We must appreciate the fact that the provisions for grant of disability
pension are in the nature of a beneficial scheme intended to provide
succour to servicemen in hard times who have been discharged from
service after having served the nation with dedication. Accordingly,
a liberal approach must be adopted while construing such beneficial
provisions. This approach has also been underscored by this Court
in Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya v. Distt. Development Officer,
Dahod, (2022) 16 SCC 343, albeit, in the context of the Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972 as applicable to Anganwadi workers, the principles
of which, in our opinion, are equally applicable in the present case
dealing with disability pension. In the said case it was observed as
follows:
“55. When social security legislations are being interpreted,
it always has to be interpreted liberally with a beneficial
interpretation and has to be given the widest possible
meaning which the language permits, known as beneficial
interpretation. When a statute is meant for the benefit of a
particular class and if a word in the statute is capable of
two meanings i.e. one which would preserve the benefits
and one which would not, then the former is to be adopted.”
31. Under these circumstances, a much more liberal view ought to be
adopted while dealing with the cases of discharge of servicemen
from service on account of suffering from Schizophrenia as they
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1303

Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India & Ors.

may face several impediments and difficulties in proving the casual
connection of the said disease with the military service.
32. It is also to be noted that this is not a case where the appellant
had applied for discharge of service on account of suffering from
Schizophrenia. It was the authority themselves who after observing
his condition decided to discharge the appellant from service after
obtaining the opinion of the Medical Board. In such a situation,
where the serviceman himself had not applied for discharge, but has
been discharged by the authority, the onus of proving the disability
and grounds of denying disability pension would lie heavily on the
authority. Since it is the statutory requirement that the opinion of the
Medical Board is to be the basis of the discharge, in our view, if the
opinion of Medical Board is devoid of reasons, the act of the authority
based on mere opinion sans reasons can certainly be questioned.
According to us, if the decision of the authority to discharge a
serviceman is based on a medical report which is devoid of reasons,
which are required to be given as also mandated by rules as discussed
above, such an act of the authority specially when it denies any post
discharge benefit will be rendered invalid in the eyes of law.
In such cases, it can be said that the authorities have failed to
discharge the burden of establishing that the employee deserved to
be discharged from service on account of such illness without any
benefit of pension and such action has to be considered arbitrary
and liable to be interfered with.
33. Assigning reasons for the opinion of the Medical Board in the present
case also becomes imperative and salutary for the reason that while
the appellant had pleaded that at the time of entry in the service,
this disease was not detected, but only after about 5 (five) years of
service and hence, as per rules also, it will be deemed that it arose
while in service, the Medical Board gave the opinion that it was a
constitutional personality disorder. The opinion of the Medical Board
is, thus, inconsistent with the plea of the appellant. Hence, it was
incumbent upon the Medical Board to assign reasons as to why the
disease is to be treated as a constitutional personality disorder which
could not be detected at the time of entry in service and as the onset
of the disease was only in 1993, which is after about 5 (five) years
of entry in service. Without there being any reasons given by the
Medical Board for their opinion that it was a constitutional personality
1304 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

disorder, we are afraid, it would be unfair to the appellant that such
an opinion of the Medical Board is to be taken as final and binding
to deprive any service benefit to the appellant.
We have also noted that in the entire original record produced
before us, there is no material for coming to the conclusion that the
appellant was suffering from Schizophrenia which is in the nature
of constitutional personal disorder.
34. Thus, in the facts and circumstances discussed above, we are of the
view that while there cannot be any dispute about the correctness of
the legal principles enunciated by this Court in the above-mentioned
cases of Keshar Singh (supra), Surinder Singh Rathore (supra),
A.V. Damodaran (supra); Jujhar Singh (supra) and Talwinder Singh
(supra), we would hasten to add that the opinion of the Medical
Board which is to be treated as final and binding as per aforesaid
Regulations, has to be supported by reasons for arriving at the
conclusion about the nature of medical disability, before the same
can be acted upon for the purpose of discharge of a serviceman
and denial of disability pension as otherwise, a valuable right of a
serviceman to get retiral benefits who has rendered long years of
service for the nation would be unjustly deprived.
35. It may also be noted that in A.V. Damodaran (supra) where this
Court had dealt with the discharge due to Schizophrenia, the Medical
Board had given detailed reasons for their opinion as mentioned in
Para 4 of the aforesaid decision, which is not the case in other cited
cases and also in the present case. The issue of giving reasons for
the opinion of the Medical Board has not been discussed in these
cited cases.
36. Accordingly, we hold that the order of discharge of the appellant
and denial of disability pension to him based on a medical opinion
without providing full reasons to support the opinion cannot be said
to be valid.
37. The question which would arise for consideration now is whether
we should remit the matter to the Medical Board at this stage for
reconsideration in the light of our observations made above. We,
however, feel that adopting the aforesaid course of action at this stage
after about 27 (twenty-seven) years of the appellant being invalided
from service on 18.05.1998, would not be in the interest of justice.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1305

Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India & Ors.

38. Resultantly, while we do not disturb the order of discharge of the
appellant from service on the ground of medical invalidity due to
Schizophrenia, we direct the respondents that the appellant be
granted disability pension with immediate effect with all attending
benefits, as per rules. However, the appellant will not be entitled to
any arrears of invalid pension, except for the last three years.
39. For the reasons discussed above, the appeal stands allowed.
Consequently, the impugned order of rejection of disability pension
dated 04.01.1999 passed by the Principal Controller of Defence
Account (Pension), Allahabad, order passed by the First Appellate
Committee on 22.05.2000, and order dated 17.01.2013 passed by
the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi, in OA No.100
of 2011 are set aside with the above directions.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Niti Richhariya, Hony. Associate Editor
(Verified by: Kanu Agrawal, Adv.)