Kerala High Court
Union Of India vs Jc No 240323P Ex-Ris Maj Muraleedharan ... on 12 February, 2026
WP(C) NO. 3331 OF 2026
2026:KER:12839
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 23RD MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 3331 OF 2026
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (ARMY), SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI,
PIN - 110 011.
2 THE CHIEF OF THE ARMY STAFF, INTEGRATED ARMY HEAD
QUARTERS, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI,
PIN - 110 011.
3 THE ADDL DTE GEN PERSONNEL SERVICE,
ADJUTANT GENERALS BRANCH INTEGRATED HQ OF MOD (ARMY),
DHQ PO, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110 011.
4 PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (PENSIONS)
OFFICE OF THE PCDA (P), DRAUPATI GARH ALLAHABAD, PIN -
211 014.
5 THE OFFICER IN CHARGE (RECORDS), RECORDS, ARMOURED
CORPS AHMEDNAGAR, MAHARASHTRA STATE, PIN - 414 001.
BY ADV SRI.C.DINESH - Sr. PANEL COUNSEL
RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT:
JC NO 240323P EX-RIS MAJ MURALEEDHARAN NAIR P
AGED 58 YEARS, ARMOURED CORPS, S/O LATE SRI. VPR
KAIDAVE, VELLARAKKATTU KANDI HOUSE, NANMINDA P.O.,
KOZHIKODE, KERALA STATE, PIN - 673 613.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.R.RAMESH
SHRI.GYOTHISH CHANDRAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 3331 OF 2026
-2-
2026:KER:12839
JUDGMENT
Dated the 12th day of February, 2026 K. NATARAJAN This writ petition is filed by the Union of India for setting aside the order dated 02.11.2022 passed by the Armed Force Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi in O.A No. 266 of 2018, wherein the AFT granted disability element of pension to the respondent and directed respondent Nos. 4 and 5 therein/appellants 4 and 5 to issue corrigendum PPO.
2. We have heard the arguments of the Senior Panel Counsel and the learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The case of the respondent/applicant before the AFT was that he was EX-Ris Major who was enrolled in the Indian Army on 31.10.1981 and after completion of his service about 31 years, 7 months and 1 day, he was discharged from the service with disabilities of 'Complete Heart Block' and Non-Alcoholic Steato Hepatitis'. The disability of 'Complete Heart Block' was considered as not attributable to service and Non-Alcoholic Steato Hepatitis was considered as aggrevated by service. However, he was denied the disability element of pension WP(C) NO. 3331 OF 2026 -3- 2026:KER:12839 payable to him. Against the decision taken by the appellate authority, the respondent approached the AFT. After considering the case of the respondent, the Tribunal passed the impugned order by granting the disability element of pension as stated in the impugned order which is under challenge.
4. The learned senior panel counsel has strenuously contented that the AFT committed error in granting the disability element of pension by ignoring the doubt expressed by the Appeal Medical Board in its opinion that the individual suffers from persistent grade-II Fatty liver and thereby, extended the benefit of doubt in favour of the individual and the ID was conceded as aggravated by service and that it is not covered under the GMO, 2002 and Amendment Regulation, 2008. Notwithstanding the above, the Tribunal granted the disability element of pension by ignoring the orders passed by the appellate authority where they had considered the disability element of the respondent assessed by Appeal Medical Board. The petitioner contended that the disability is not aggravated by the military service. But, the Appellate Medical Board, in its opinion, raised a doubt as to whether it is aggravated by the military service and therefore, the disability is not confirmed by WP(C) NO. 3331 OF 2026 -4- 2026:KER:12839 the Board. It is also contented that in view of the same, the order of the AFT is not sustainable and hence, he prayed for setting aside the same.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the order passed by the AFT contenting that respondent had put in service for more than 31 years 7 months and he had joined the service in the year 1981 as Sepoy. During the year 1984, he suffered from 'Viral Hepatitis' and he was undergoing treatment. Later, in 2013, the Medical Board opined that it was not aggravated or not attributable to the military service. But, the respondent was discharged with the disability of 'Complete Heart Block' which has to be considered as attributable to the military service. But, the authorities denied the elements of disability pension. Therefore, he has approached the First Appellate Authority, who rejected his request.
6. Being aggrieved, he has filed an appeal before the Second Appellate Authority who, in turn, constituted an Appeal Medical Board for verifying the request of the respondent. As per the opinion of the Appeal Medical Board, the disease was aggravated by the military service and considering the same, AFT has rightly granted the element of disability pension, it is WP(C) NO. 3331 OF 2026 -5- 2026:KER:12839 argued. It is also contented that the Tribunal also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others v. A.V. Damodaran [2009 (9) SCC 140] and there is no error committed by the AFT in impugned order so as to interfere with by this Court in the writ jurisdiction and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel on both sides and perused the records, the point that arises for our consideration is whether the order under challenge calls for interference.
8. On a perusal of records, it is not in dispute that the respondent has put in service of 31 years 7 months and 1 day, when he was discharged on 31.05.2013 with the disability of 'Complete Heart Block' and 'Non Alcoholic Steato Hepatitis'. Though, the Medical Board in the initial opinion dated 08.02.2013, it is stated the disease is neither attributable to the military service nor aggravated by military service, while discharging from the service, the respondent was discharged with the 'Complete Heart Block' and 'Non-Alcoholic Steato Hepatitis'. Therefore, he has approached the authorities for granting an element of disability pension which was rejected. WP(C) NO. 3331 OF 2026 -6- 2026:KER:12839
9. Aggrieved by the same, he has filed the First Appeal, which also came to be rejected. Hence, he has approached the Second Appellate Authority, who constituted an Appeal Medical Board and accordingly, as per the document produced by the petitioner in Ext.P1, the Appeal Medical Board opined that the respondent is having persistent Grade-II Fatty Liver granting a benefit of doubt to the petitioner, the disease was conceded as aggravated by the service. Though, it is clarified that the same is not covered by any of the paragraphs of the GMO, 2002 or Amendment Regulation, 2008, the opinion of the Appeal Medical Board is referred here as under:
"The individual had initially presented with features of hepatitis (HBSAg negative) in Oct 1984 following two bouts of malaria. Follow up revealed persistent hepatitis. With negative serological markers and he was subjected to a liver biopsy which revealed chronic active hepatitis. He was placed in LMC for the same in May 1986 and followed up as a case of chronic active hepatitis. In 1988, the individual's diagnosis was changed to Gilbert's syndrome and he was thereafter upgraded to SHAPE-I. However, during a subsequent review in Jan 2013 for ID (i) Complete Heart Block, he was again found to be suffering from hepatitis and was diagnosed as a case of Non alcoholic Steato Hepatitis (NASH) after a liver biopsy. NASH is commonly associated with obesity, dyslipidemia, insulin resistance, prolonged total parenteraL nutrition or protein energy malnutrition. WP(C) NO. 3331 OF 2026 -7- 2026:KER:12839 The association of NASH with infections is not clearly established yet in medical literature. In the instant case, the onset of the ID was following repeated bouts o malaria. Following onset, the individual was placed on long term steroid therapy. He thereafter continued to serve for 28 yrs in various stations, during which time his condition had a waxing and waning course. At the time of RMB, he had persistent grade-II Fatty liver. Granting the benefit of doubt to the individual in the instant case, the ID is conceded as aggravated by service. It is clarified that the ID NASH is not specifically covered in any paragraph of the GMO 2002, amendment 2008."
10. The Second Appellate Authority once again rejected his request as there were doubts in respect of the opinion of the Appeal Medical Board as to whether the disease was aggravated by the service. Though, the initial opinion was mentioned as not attributable to service, the second opinion of the Appeal Medical Board has categorically stated the same as aggravated by military service. Admittedly, the respondent was put in service for more than 31 years. Even in the year 1984, he has undergone continuous steroid therapy and he was subjected to liver biopsy which revealed he has 'Chronic Active Hepatitis'. The petitioner has no case that when joining in 1981, he did not suffer from any of the diseases either hepatitis or any chronic WP(C) NO. 3331 OF 2026 -8- 2026:KER:12839 liver diseases and he has not undergone any steroid therapy while joining the service. Subsequent to joining the service, the respondent suffered this disability and it is also opined by the Medical Board that he has Non-Alcoholic Steato Hepatitis. Considering the same, the Tribunal has held that the disability was aggravated by service. The Hon'ble Apex Court in A.V. Damodaran (Supra), held as under:
"30. When an individual is found suffering from any disease or has sustained injury, he is examined by the medical experts who would not only examine him but also ascertain the nature of disease/injury and also record a decision as to whether the said personnel is to be placed in a medical category which is lower than "AYE" (fit category) and whether temporarily or permanently. They also give a medical assessment and advice as to whether the individual is to be brought before the Release/Invalidating Medical Board
31. The said Release/Invalidating Medical Board generally consists of three doctors and they, keeping in view the clinical profile, the date and place of onset of invalidating disease/disability and service conditions, draw a conclusion as to whether the disease/injury has a causal connection with military service or not. On the basis of the same they recommend (a) attributability, or (b) aggravation, or (c) whether connection with service.
32. The second aspect which is also examined is the extent to which the functional capacity of the individual is impaired. The same is adjudged and an assessment is made of the percentage of the disability suffered by the said personnel which is recorded so that the case of the personnel could be considered for grant of disability element of pension. Another aspect which is taken notice of at this stage is the duration for which the disability is likely to continue. The same is assessed/recommended in view of the disease being capable of being improved.
WP(C) NO. 3331 OF 2026 -9- 2026:KER:12839
33. All the aforesaid aspects are recorded and recommended in the form of AFMSF 16. The Invalidating Medical Board forms its opinion/recommendation on the basis of the medical report, injury report, court of enquiry proceedings, if any, charter of duties relating to peace or field area and of course, the physical examination of the individual.
34. The aforesaid provisions came to be interpreted by the various decisions rendered by this Court in which it has been consistently held that the opinion given by the doctors or the Medical Board shall be given weightage and primacy in the matter for ascertainment as to whether or not the injuries/illness sustained was due to or was aggravated by the military service which contributed to invalidation from the military service."
11. We also perused the communication issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence regarding Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 2008 at Regulations 5 and 6, which read as follows:
"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, irrespective 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."
12. On a careful perusal of the Regulation 6, it is clear that a WP(C) NO. 3331 OF 2026 -10- 2026:KER:12839 casual connection is enough for granting pension to the personnel who suffered disability or death during the military service. As per Regulation 9, the presumption is in favor of the military personnel and there is no need to prove it; but, it has to be proved by the authorities to show that the disease was not attributable to or aggravated by the military service. The opinion of the Appeal Medical Board clearly shows that the disability is aggravated by the military service. Such being the case, we are in respectful agreement with the reasons stated by the AFT in granting the disability element of pension to the respondent and there is no error apparent in the impugned order to interfere with by this Court under writ jurisdiction.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
K. NATARAJAN, JUDGE.
Sd/-
JOHNSON JOHN JUDGE ASH WP(C) NO. 3331 OF 2026 -11- 2026:KER:12839 APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 3331 OF 2026 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF O.A. 266/2018 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE FILED BY THE APPLICANT, BEFORE THE AFT, KOCHI.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN THE OA.
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION POLICY DATED 23/01/2018 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF DEFENSE.
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THAT ORDER IN O.A. 266/2018 DATED 02.11.2022.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL