Union Of India Through Its Secretary To ... vs No.3383343N Ex Nk Sujet Singh S/O Shri ... on 13 November, 2025

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Union Of India Through Its Secretary To ... vs No.3383343N Ex Nk Sujet Singh S/O Shri ... 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 throw challenge to an order and judgment dated 16th January, 2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench Srinagar at Jammu ["AFT"] in OA No.7 of 2023 titled Sujet Singh v. Union of India and WP(C) No.2991/2024 2 2025:JKLHC-JMU:3718-DB others, whereby the AFT has allowed the OA filed by the respondent and quashed the impugned orders in the OA, whereby the respondent's claim of disability pension was rejected. The respondent has been held entitled to disability pension @ 20% for life and rounded it off to 50%, from the next day of his discharge.

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. The AFT also did not appreciate that the opinion of the Medical Board consisting of experts was not amenable to judicial review by the Court unless there was strong medical evidence on record to dispute such opinion.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would support the judgment passed by the AFT. It is argued 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. Indisputably, the respondent joined the Indian Army on 20th March, 1984 in a fit medical condition and discharged on 31.01.2001 WP(C) No.2991/2024 3 2025:JKLHC-JMU:3718-DB for which he was granted service pension. The respondent was re- enrolled in Defence Security Corps (DSC) service on 11.12.2002 and was discharged from DSC service on 31.03.2021 in low medical category for the disability "TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS". Before discharge, the Release Medical Board, assessed the disability of the respondent @ 20% for life and declared the same as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Respondent's claim for grant of disability pension was, accordingly, rejected by the Records vide letter dated 01.05.2021. The first appeal preferred by the respondent against rejection of his disability pension claim was also rejected vide communication dated 30.08.2022.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed OA No. 07 of 2023 before the AFT. The OA was contested by the petitioners herein and in the reply affidavit filed, the stand taken was that since the disability of the respondent @20% for life has been regarded as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service by the Release Medical Board, the respondent was 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 disability incurred by the respondent "aggravated by Army/DSC Service". Consequently, the respondent was held entitled to disability element of pension @ 20% WP(C) No.2991/2024 4 2025:JKLHC-JMU:3718-DB for life with the benefit of rounding off to 50% for life. 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 position obtaining on the issue, culled out following principles:-

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.

WP(C) No.2991/2024 5

2025:JKLHC-JMU:3718-DB

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).

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.

WP(C) No.2991/2024 6

2025:JKLHC-JMU:3718-DB

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 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 WP(C) No.2991/2024 7 2025:JKLHC-JMU:3718-DB 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 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). WP(C) No.2991/2024 8

2025:JKLHC-JMU:3718-DB

9. In view of the aforesaid settled 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 DSC service.

10. Before we proceed further, it needs to be taken note of that respondent-Sujet Singh having been discharged for disablement in the year 2021 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.

11. Para 26 of GMO, 2008 deals with Diabetes Mellitus, which, for facility of reference, is set out below:

"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.

WP(C) No.2991/2024 9

2025:JKLHC-JMU:3718-DB 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."

12. It is not in dispute that when the respondent was accepted in DSC service he was found physically and mentally fit by the authorities and, therefore, the diseases diabetes mellitus type-II , which led to refusal of his extension and release from DSC service occurred during service. To disentitle him from claiming disability element of pension, the petitioners must plead and demonstrate that the disability which the respondent was found inflicted with at the time of his release from DSC service had though arisen during DSC service was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. The burden to prove absence of causal connection between the disability and military service was also on the petitioners.

13. With a view to determine as to whether the petitioners have successfully discharged the burden and have, by clear, unambiguous and cogent medical evidence established that the disability, which the WP(C) No.2991/2024 10 2025:JKLHC-JMU:3718-DB respondent was found suffering at the time of his release from DSC service was neither attributable to nor aggravated to by the military/DSC service, we have gone through the medical record which is part of the paper-book. The relevant portion of the medical opinion is set out below:-

Disability Attributable to Aggravated Detailed justification service (Y/N) by service (Y/N) Type 2 Diabetes No No In the instant case the onset Mellitus(ICDE E- of disability was in peace

11) station and the individual continued to service in peace till retirement hence neither attributable nor aggravated by service vide para 26, Chapter VI of GMO 2002/2008

14. From the reading of above, it clearly transpires beyond any shadow of doubt that given the medical opinion on record, it cannot be said that the petitioners have successfully discharged the burden to prove disentitlement on the ground of absence of causal connection between the disability and the military/DSC service, as the one line opinion by the medical board in respect of the disability with regard to its attributability to or aggravation by military service is no substitute for a clear, unambiguous and cogent medical reasons required to disentitle the respondent from disability pension.

15. The GMO, 2008, mandates that the medical authorities must clearly opine as to whether the disabilities which the personnel has been found inflicted with at the time of his release, which have arisen during service became worse in service or not. The medical authority WP(C) No.2991/2024 11 2025:JKLHC-JMU:3718-DB must answer the question whether the service compulsions have caused aggravation or not. The medical authorities also required to consider the entire service career of the individual to find out as to whether any long and frequent spells of service in field/HAA/ACTIVE operational area has created stressful situation, thus, aggravating the primary hypertension. It is abundantly clear that the factors like stress and strain of the military service, isolation and living of the individual away from his family, dietic compulsions of service are some of the factors which do have the effect of aggravating all the three diseases noted above.

16. In the face of overwhelming medical opinion with regard to the diseases and guidelines laid down in 2008 GMO, it is a foregone conclusion that the disability, which the individual was found suffering at the time of his discharge from DSC service was aggravated by DSC service.

17. The plea of Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that rounding off should not have been permitted in favour of the respondent, who was not invalidated out of service because of disability but retired on attaining normal superannuation, too, has been set at rest by the Supreme Court and different High Courts. The rounding off is applicable even to the cases where the army personnel retires on normal superannuation with a disability incurred by him during the course of his service provided such disability is either attributable to or aggravated by military WP(C) No.2991/2024 12 2025:JKLHC-JMU:3718-DB service. This view has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Ram Avtar 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1761.

18. 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.

                            (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