Union Of India Through Its Secretary To ... vs No.14481241F Ex L/Nk Dildar Singh S/O ... on 13 November, 2025

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Union Of India Through Its Secretary To ... vs No.14481241F Ex L/Nk Dildar Singh S/O ... on 13 November, 2025

1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Union of India and others seek to assail an order and judgment dated 28th March, 2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench Srinagar at Jammu ["AFT"] in OA No.189 of 2022 titled Ex L/Nk Dildar Singh v. Union of India and others, whereby the AFT has allowed the OA filed by the respondent and set aside the impugned orders, whereby the respondent‟s claim of disability pension was rejected. The disability of the respondent has been declared aggravated by Army service and, accordingly, the respondent was held entitled to disability pension @ 50% as against 30% for two years from the next date of his discharge. Reliance has been placed by the AFT on Dhahramvir Singh v. Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 316 and Union of India v. Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1761.

2. The impugned judgment of the AFT is assailed by the petitioners on the ground that the AFT has failed to consider that the disability of the respondent had been assessed by the Release Medical Board as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. No WP(C) Nos.867, 688 & 1285 of 2025 4 2025:JKLHC-JMU:3719-DB causal connection has been established by the respondent between his disability and military service. The AFT also did not appreciate that the medical board is an expert body and its opinion is entitled to be given due weight, value and credence.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would support the judgment passed by the AFT. It is stated that the AFT has taken care of all aspects of the matter.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by the AFT is perfectly legal and does not call for any interference by us in the exercise of our extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

5. The facts which are not in dispute are that the respondent was enrolled in Army on 28th October, 1982 in a fit state of health and discharged on 30th June, 1999 in low medical category. Before discharge the respondent was brought before a duly constituted Release Medical Board, which assessed his disability Paranoid State iCD-297 V-57 @ 30%, however, regarded the same as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Respondent‟s claim for grant of disability pension was, accordingly, rejected by the petitioners. The first appeal preferred by the respondent against rejection of his claim of disability pension was also rejected. WP(C) Nos.867, 688 & 1285 of 2025 5

2025:JKLHC-JMU:3719-DB

6. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed OA No. 189 of 2022 before the AFT seeking inter alia a direction to the petitioners herein to grant disability pension in favour of the respondent with the benefit of rounding off with effect from 01.07.1999. The OA was contested by the petitioners herein on the ground that since the invaliding disease was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, hence the respondent is not entitled to disability pension. It was submitted that the opinion of the Medical Board, being an expert body, was accepted and must be respected by the courts as well.

7. The AFT having considered the OA in the light of rival contentions of the parties and having regard to the legal and factual position obtaining in the matter, held the respondent entitled to disability pension @ 30% with the benefit of rounding off to 50% for two years from the next date of his discharge. The petitioners have been further directed to conduct a Re-survey Medical Board of the respondent to assess his further entitlement of disability pension. It is in these circumstances, the OA filed by the respondent came to be allowed.

8. This Court in a batch of writ petitions [WP(C) No. 3173/2023 a/w connected matters decided on 03.11.2025], has considered the issue with respect to the grant of disability pension to persons discharged/invalided out of service from armed forces and after considering the relevant rules, regulations and legal positions obtaining on the issue, culled out following principles:-

WP(C) Nos.867, 688 & 1285 of 2025 6

2025:JKLHC-JMU:3719-DB

i) The grant of disability pension to the army personnel is not a charity or an act of generosity but a true act of acknowledge of the sacrifices made by them during their service, which manifest in the form of diseases and disabilities. The Pension Regulations and the Entitlement Rules framed by the Government of India for providing financial benefits to the soldiers and military personnel, who encounter diseases and disabilities which are attributable to or aggravated by military service are meant to provide absolute undiluted protection and recompense for the injury that leads to loss of service and leaves such soldiers without any effective means of sustenance. The Pension Regulations and the Entitlement Rules being in the realm of welfare measures must receive liberal interpretation and in case of any doubt or ambiguity, the interpretation must tilt in favour of the claimant/pensioner.

ii) The nature and extent of disability or cause of death falls within the domain of medical experts and, therefore, the opinion of the medical board with regard to nature and extent of disease or disability should ordinarily be accepted as final, unless there is strong medical evidence on record to dispute such opinion. And even in such cases, the judicial review would be limited to the extent of directing the army authorities to consider review medical board for examination of the claimant.

iii) That since the entitlement of a member of the force to disability pension depends largely on the opinion of the medical board, as such, it is obligatory on the medical boards to record clear and cogent reasons in support of their medical opinion. Absent such clear and cogent reasons in support of the medical opinion, it shall be presumed that the disease that afflicted the soldier during service was due to army service.

iv) Under the 1982 Entitlement Rules, there was a presumption in favour of the claimant that he was in sound physical and mental condition when he joined the service except to a specific disability noted or recorded at the time of entrance into service.

In the event of his subsequently being discharged from service on medical grounds, any deterioration of his health which has taken place, is due to service (Rule-5).

WP(C) Nos.867, 688 & 1285 of 2025 7

2025:JKLHC-JMU:3719-DB

v) A disease which has led to an individual's discharge or death shall ordinarily be deemed to have been arisen in service, if no note of it has been made at the time of individual's acceptance in military service. This is, however, subject to medical opinion holding, for reasons to be stated, that the disease was such as could not have been detected on medical examination prior to acceptance for service. Even if, in the circumstances aforementioned, disease is accepted as having arisen in service, the army authorities must establish that conditions of military service determined or contributed to the onset of the disease and that the conditions were due to circumstances of duty in military service. The onus of proof is not on the claimant and it is for the employer to demonstrate the conditions for non-entitlement of the claimant, for, there is a presumption in favour of the army personnel, who entered in service while being in fit physical and mental conditions and suffered from disease or disablement during service. This was the position precisely in the 1982 Entitlement Rules. However, in 2008 Entitlement Rules, there is no such presumption, yet the onus of proof is still on the employer to establish the disentitlement of the soldier to the benefit of disability pension on the prescribed grounds. It is only where claim for disability pension is lodged after 15 years, the initial onus will shift to the claimant.

vi) That notwithstanding the removal of presumption of entitlement envisaged in the 1982 Entitlement Rules, the legal position has not undergone any substantial change. An army personnel, who is accepted in army service after proper physical and mental examination shall be deemed to possess sound physical and mental condition. The Army would not accept an individual, who is not mentally and physically fit for army service. Though, as is now provided under the 2008 Entitlement Rules, the examination at the time of entering into service shall be of general nature and would not be exhaustive to find out latent and hidden hereditary, constitutional or congenital diseases, yet any onset of such disease during service has to be certified to be so by the medical authorities supported by clear and cogent medical reasons.

vii) In terms of Rule 15 of 1982 Entitlement Rules, if onset and progress of a disease is affected by environmental factors WP(C) Nos.867, 688 & 1285 of 2025 8 2025:JKLHC-JMU:3719-DB relating to service conditions, dietic compulsion, exposure to noise, physical and mental stress and strain or is due to infection arisen in service, such disease would merit entitlement of attributability. The possibility of pre-service history of such condition as may be certified by the medical authorities may rule out entitlement of attributability but would require consideration regarding aggravation. Annexure-III to the 1982 Entitlement Rules classifies the diseases which are affected by environmental factors in service and would serve as guide to find as to whether a particular disease or disability is attributed to or aggravated by army service.

viii) However, the cases post 2008 Regulations and governed by 2008 Entitlement Rules would leave the attributability or aggravation to be determined by the medical authorities. The disease would be accepted as attributable to military service, if it has arisen during the period of military service and has been caused by the conditions of employment in military service. The diseases due to infection arisen during service, other than sexually transmitted diseases, shall be deemed to be attributable to military service. In the case of diseases where their cause is not known, there shall be presumption of entitlement in favour of the claimant that it is also attributable to military service unless such presumption is rebutted on the basis of clinical picture and current scientific medical application.

ix) A disability shall be considered aggravated by service conditions, 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. This again would be subject to clear and cogent medical opinion by the competent medical authority.

x) A disease or disability shall not be held attributable to or aggravated by military service unless a causal connection between the disability or death and military service has been established by appropriate authority.

xi) That the Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pension), 1980 as amended from time to time shall be kept in mind by the medical boards and the authorities concerned to determine as to whether WP(C) Nos.867, 688 & 1285 of 2025 9 2025:JKLHC-JMU:3719-DB disability or death is due to military service i.e. either attributable to or aggravated by military service.

xii) The amendments to Chapter-VI to Guide to Medical Officer (Military Pensions), 2008 analyze different type of diseases and lay down guidelines to determine whether a particular disease is attributable to or could be aggravated by military service. Diseases like, hypertension, diabetic mellitus, Ischaemic Heart Disease (IHD) etc etc. find mention in paragraph 43, 26 and 47 of the GMO, 2008 and serve as broad guide to determine attributability or aggravation aspects.

xiii)Burden to disprove the acceptance of causal connection between disability and the military service is on the authorities and the same cannot be said to have been discharged by any inchoate, casual, perfunctory or vague approach of the authorities. This underlines the profound significance of the requirement of recording reasons by the medical board(s).

xiv) That so long as it is established that the disability or death bears causal connection with the service condition, 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 condition (Regulation 423 of the Regulations for Medical Services to Armed Forces, 2010).

9. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the only question that begs determination in this case is whether opinion of the medical board, which assessed the disability incurred by the respondent as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service can be relied upon to justify the disentitlement of the army personnel to the disability element of pension in respect of his military service.

10. Before we proceed further, it needs to be taken note of that respondent having been discharged for disablement in the year 1999 is covered by 1961 Regulations read with 1982, Entitlement Rules. As WP(C) Nos.867, 688 & 1285 of 2025 10 2025:JKLHC-JMU:3719-DB provided in 1982, Entitlement Rules, the Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pension), 1980, as amended from time to time, is required to be read with the said Rules.

11. It is not in dispute that when the respondent was accepted in army service, he was found physically and mentally fit by the authorities and, therefore, the disease, which led to his discharge from army service, occurred during service. To disentitle the respondent from claiming the disability pension, the petitioners are required to plead and demonstrate that the disability „Paranoid State ICD-297, which led to the discharge of the respondent, though arisen during service, was neither attributable to nor aggravated by army service. The burden to prove absence of causal connection between the disability and the army was service also on the petitioners.

12. With a view to determining as to whether the petitioners have successfully discharged the burden and have by clear, unambiguous and cogent medical evidence established that the disability „Paranoid State‟, which led to the invalidation of the respondent from military service is neither attributable to nor aggravated by army service, we have gone through the medical record, which is part of the paper-book. The relevant portion whereof is set out below:-

"It is a constitutional disorder"

13. From a reading of the above, it transpires beyond any shadow of doubt that given the medical opinion on record, it cannot be said that WP(C) Nos.867, 688 & 1285 of 2025 11 2025:JKLHC-JMU:3719-DB the petitioners have succeeded in discharging the burden to prove disentitlement on the ground of absence of causal connection between the disability and the army service. The one line opinion of the medical board that it is a constitutional disorder, therefore, the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by army service is not a substitute for clear, unambiguous and cogent medical reason to disentitle the respondent from disability pension.

14. A paranoid state refers to a psychiatric condition characterized by excessive suspicion, mistrust, or the false belief that others are conspiring against, persecuting, or intending harm to the individual. It may appear as part of various mental health disorders, such as paranoid schizophrenia, delusional disorder (persecutory type), or paranoid personality disorder. It can arise from a combination of biological, psychological, and environmental factors, including Genetic and biological vulnerability, Brain, Stress and trauma etc. Exposure to severe or chronic stress, trauma or isolation due to service compulsions are the some of factors, which do have the effect of aggravation.

15. Even as provided in Rule 5 of the 1982, Entitlement Rules, a member is presumed to have been in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service except as to physical disabilities noted or recorded at the time of entrance and in the event of his subsequently being discharged from service on medical grounds any deterioration in his health which has taken place is due to service. Admittedly, no note of any disability was recorded at the time of entrance, therefore, WP(C) Nos.867, 688 & 1285 of 2025 12 2025:JKLHC-JMU:3719-DB subsequent discharge of the respondent on account of disability is to be taken as attributable to service.

16. For all these reasons, we find no illegality or infirmity in the judgment passed by the AFT. The writ petition is, therefore, found devoid of any merit, the same is, accordingly, dismissed. WP(C) No.688/2025

17. Impugned in this petition filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is an order and judgment dated 20th March, 2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Srinagar Bench at Jammu ["AFT"] in OA No.554/2018 titled No.9089637K Ex Naik Roop Lal v. Union of India and others, whereby the OA filed by the respondent has been allowed and the orders rejecting the respondent‟s claim for grant of disability element of disability pension have been set aside. The respondent has been held entitled to disability element of pension @ 50% for life with effect from three years preceding the date of filing of OA i.e. 25.10.2018.

18. In the instant case, the respondent was enrolled in Indian Army on 16th December, 1989 and discharged on 31st December, 2011 in low medical category. Before discharge, the respondent was brought before a duly constituted Release Medical Board, which assessed the disabilities incurred by the respondent (i) Primary Hypertension, (ii) Obesity and (iii) Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus @ 50% compositely, however, regarded the same as neither attributable to nor aggravated by service. Respondent‟s claim for disability pension was, accordingly, WP(C) Nos.867, 688 & 1285 of 2025 13 2025:JKLHC-JMU:3719-DB rejected. The legal notice served by the respondent was also of no avail. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed OA No.554 of 2018, which came to be allowed by the AFT and held the disabilities „Primary Hypertension and Type-II Diabetes Mellitus‟ as aggravated by army service vide order impugned, which is assailed by the petitioners on the ground that since the disabilities of the respondent were regarded as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, as such, he is not entitled to disability pension.

19. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

20. In view of the principles laid down by this Court in WP(C) No.3173/2023 (supra), the only question that begs determination in this case is whether opinion of the medical board, which assessed the disability incurred by the respondent as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service can be relied upon to justify the disentitlement of the army personnel to the disability element of pension in respect of his military service.

21. Before we proceed further, it needs to be taken note of that respondent having been discharged for disablement in the year 2011 is covered by 2008 Regulations read with 2008, Entitlement Rules. As provided in Rule 1(b) of 2008, Entitlement Rules, the Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pension), 2008, as amended from time to time, is required to be read with the said Rules.

WP(C) Nos.867, 688 & 1285 of 2025 14

2025:JKLHC-JMU:3719-DB

22. Para 26 and 43 and of GMO 2008 are relevant for determination in this case, which, for facility of reference, are reproduced hereunder:

"26. Diabetes Mellitus. This is a metabolic disease characterised by hyperglycemia due to absolute/relative deficiency of insulin and associated with long term complications called microangiopathy (retinopathy, nephropathy and neuropathy) and macroangiopathy.

There are two types of Primary diabetes, Type 1 and Type 2. Type 1 diabetes results from severe and acute destruction of Beta cells of pancreas by autoimmunity brought about by various infections including viruses and other environmental toxins in the background of genetic susceptibility. Type 2 diabetes is not HLA-linked and autoimmune destruction does not play a role.

Secondary diabetes can be due to drugs or due to trauma to pancreas or brain surgery or otherwise. Rarely, it can be due to diseases of pituitary, thyroid and adrenal gland. Diabetes arises in close time relationship to service out of infection, trauma, and post surgery and post drug therapy be considered attributable.

Type 1 Diabetes results from acute beta cell destruction by immunological injury resulting from the interaction of certain acute viral infections and genetic beta cell susceptibility. If such a relationship from clinical presentation is forthcoming, then Type 1 Diabetes mellitus should be made attributable to service. Type 2 diabetes is considered a life style disease. Stress and strain, improper diet non-compliance to therapeutic measures because of service reasons, sedentary life style are the known factors which can precipitate diabetes or cause uncontrolled diabetic state.

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus will be conceded aggravated if onset occurs while serving in Field, CIOPS, HAA and prolonged afloat service and having been diagnosed as Type 2 diabetes mellitus who are required serve in these areas.

Diabetes secondary to chronic pancreatitis due to alcohol dependence and gestational diabetes should not be considered attributable to service."

..............................

WP(C) Nos.867, 688 & 1285 of 2025 15

2025:JKLHC-JMU:3719-DB "43. Hypertension - The first consideration should be to determine whether the· hypertension is primary 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.

As in the case of atherosclerosis, entitlement of attributability 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. 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. Primary hypertension will be considered aggravated if it occurs while serving in Field areas, HAA, CIOPS areas or prolonged afloat service."

23. It is not in dispute that when the respondent was accepted in army service, he was found physically and mentally fit by the authorities and, therefore, the diseases, which led to his discharge from army service, occurred during service. To disentitle the respondent from claiming the disability pension, the petitioners are required to plead and demonstrate that the disabilities 'diabetes mellitus' and „hypertension‟, which led to discharge of the respondent, though arisen during service, was neither attributable to nor aggravated by army service. The burden to prove absence of causal connection between the disability and the army service was also on the petitioners.

24. With a view to determining as to whether the petitioners have successfully discharged the burden and have by clear, unambiguous and cogent medical evidence established that the disability, which led to the invalidation of the respondent from military service is neither attributable to nor aggravated by army service, we have gone through WP(C) Nos.867, 688 & 1285 of 2025 16 2025:JKLHC-JMU:3719-DB the medical record, which is part of the paper-book. The relevant portion whereof is set out below:-

Disability Attributable to Aggrevated by Not connected Reason/Cause service (Y/N) service (Y/N) with service Specific (Y/N) condition and period in service

(a) Primary No No Yes Due to metabolic Hypertension disorder

(b) Obestiry No No Yes -do-

(c)      Type-II          No                 No                 Yes                -do-
Diabetes Mellitus

25. From the reading of the above, it transpires beyond any shadow of doubt that given the medical opinion on record, it cannot be said that the petitioners have succeeded in discharging the burden to prove disentitlement on the ground of absence of causal connection between the disability and the army service. The one line opinion of the medical board that the onset of the disease was in peace area, therefore, the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by army service is not a substitute for clear, unambiguous and cogent medical reason to disentitle the respondent from disability pension.

26. GMO, 2008 and in particular para 43 mandates that the medical authority must opine that the disease that has arisen during service career became worse in service or not. The medical authority must answer the question whether the service compulsions have caused aggravation or not. Furthermore, the medical authority must consider the entire service career of the individual to find out as to whether any long or frequent spells of service in field/HAA/active operational area WP(C) Nos.867, 688 & 1285 of 2025 17 2025:JKLHC-JMU:3719-DB have created stressful situations, thus, aggravating primary hypertension and Diabetes Mellitus.

27. Further, as per para 26 of GMO 2008, stress, strain, improper diet non-compliance to therapeutic measures because of service reasons, sedentary life are the known factors which can precipitate diabetes or cause uncontrolled diabetic. The medical opinion sans such reason and, therefore, the benefit of ambiguity in medical opinion has to be given to the respondent. Even, diseases of such nature develop over a period of time and may incidentally manifest when individual is serving in peace area.

28. For all these reasons, we find no illegality or infirmity in the judgment passed by the AFT. The writ petition is, therefore, found devoid of any merit, the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

WP(C) No.1285/2025

29. The respondent, in the instant case, was initially enrolled in Army on 31st may, 1984 and discharged on 31st May, 2001. He was re-

enrolled in DSC on 01st January, 2002 and discharged on 31st December, 2011 in low medical category. Before discharge, the respondent was brought before the Release Medical Board, which assessed his disability „Primary Hypertension‟ @ 30% for life, however, regarded the same as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Respondent‟s claim for disability pension was rejected. .The appeal filed by the respondent also came to be rejected. WP(C) Nos.867, 688 & 1285 of 2025 18

2025:JKLHC-JMU:3719-DB Aggrieved whereby, the respondent filed OA No.27 of 2022 before the AFT, which came to be allowed vide order dated 17 th November, 2022 holding the respondent entitled to disability pension @ 50% as against 30% after being rounded off. However, arrears have been restricted to three years preceding the date of institution of the OA i.e. 03.02.2022.

30. The petitioners are in appeal against the order of the AFT on the ground that since the disability of the respondent was held by the release medical board as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, he was not entitled to disability pension.

31. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, the only question that requires determination in this case is whether the opinion of the medical board, which assessed the disability incurred by the respondent as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service can be relied upon to justify the disentitlement of the army personnel to the disability element of pension in respect of his military service.

32. With a view to determining as to whether the petitioners have successfully discharged the burden and have by clear, unambiguous and cogent medical evidence established that the disability, which led to the invalidation of the respondent from military service is neither attributable to nor aggravated by army service, we have gone through the medical record, which is part of the paper-book. The relevant portion whereof is set out below:-

WP(C) Nos.867, 688 & 1285 of 2025 19

2025:JKLHC-JMU:3719-DB Disability Attributable to Aggrevated by Not connected Reason/Cause service (Y/N) service (Y/N) with service Specific (Y/N) condition and period in service Primary No No Yes Onset of Hypertension disability in peace station. Ref to Para 43 Chapter VI Guide to Med.

Officer (Military Pensions, 2008

33. From the reading of the above, it transpires beyond any shadow of doubt that given the medical opinion on record, it cannot be said that the petitioners have succeeded in discharging the burden to prove disentitlement on the ground of absence of causal connection between the disability and the army service. The one line opinion of the medical board that the onset of the disease was in peace area, therefore, the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by army service is not a substitute for clear, unambiguous and cogent medical reason to disentitle the respondent from disability pension.

34. In view of the above, this writ petition found to be without any merit, hence dismissed.

                                     (Sanjay Parihar)                    (Sanjeev Kumar)
                                           Judge                             Judge
JAMMU
13.11.2025
Vinod                                  Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No
                                       Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jammu & Kashmir High Court