Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Union Of India Through Its vs Rajinder Singh (Ts) Ex. No on 20 November, 2025
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case No: WP(C) No. 527/2024
CM NO.1237/2024
Reserved on: 10.11.2025
Pronounced on: 20.11.2025
Uploaded on: 20.11.2025
Whether the operative part or full
Judgment is pronounced :Full
1. Union of India through its
Secretary to Government of
India, Ministry of Defence,
South Block,
New Delhi-110 011.
2. Additional Director General
Personnel Services,
Adjutant General‟s Branch,
Integrated HQ of Ministry of
Defence (Army), DHQ PO,
New Delhi- 110 001.
3. Principal Controller of Defence
Accounts (Pensions), Draupadi
Ghat, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh-
211 014.
4. Senior Record Officer, JAKLI
Record Office, Pin 911 097
C/O 56 APO.
...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Suneel Malhotra, CGSC
v/s
Rajinder Singh (TS) Ex. No.
9104566 N- NK S/O Shri Shamsher
Singh, R/O Village and
P.O.Dhangri, Tehsil Rajouri,
District Rajouri.
.... Respondent(s)
Through: None.
WP(C) No. 527/2024 Page 1 of 8
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE.
JUDGMENT
PER OSWAL-J
1. The respondent was enrolled in military service on 17 thMarch, 2000 in
J&K Light Infantry but discharged on 31.03.2017 (Afternoon) after
rendering 17 years of service and attaining the age of 50 years. Prior
to his discharge, the respondent was examined by the Release Medical
Board on 16thNovember, 2016, and Release Medical Board assessed
his disability as Diabetes Mellitus Type II (R-73) and Obesity (E-
66) @ 20% composite and NIL % for life. The disability suffered by
the respondent was stated to be neither attributable to nor aggravated
by military service, and as such the respondent was held not qualified
for disability pension.
2. The respondent did not prefer the appeal, but submitted a
representation dated 5th March 2020 through his counsel for grant of
disability element and the said representation dated 5 thMarch, 2020
was replied by the petitioners in terms of letter dated 17thMarch, 2020
thereby rejecting the claim of the respondent for grant of disability
element.
3. Aggrieved thereof, the respondent filed OA No. 102 of 2021 before
the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Srinagar at Jammu (for
short- „Tribunal‟). The OA was disposed of by the learned Tribunal
vide order dated 15thJuly, 2022.
4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have assailed the order on the
grounds, inter alia, that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that
the disabilities suffered by the respondent, namely Diabetes Mellitus
Type II (R-73) and Obesity (E-66), had been assessed by a duly
constituted Release Medical Board as neither attributable to nor
aggravated by military service. It is contended that, as per the settled
legal position, due weight is required to be accorded to the findings of
the Medical Board while arriving at a conclusion and this aspect
which, according to the petitioners, was overlooked by the learned
Tribunal. It is further submitted that the instant case does not fall
within the parameters of the law laid down in Dharamvir Singh v.
Union of India & Others, (2013) 7 SCC 316.
5. Mr. Suneel Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated
the submissions as recorded above.
6. Heard and perused the record meticulously.
7. It needs to be noted that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in
WP(C) No. 3173/2023, Union of India and others v. Nirman Singh
Jamwal, along with the connected petitions, after examining a catena
of judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India and various High
Courts, and upon considering the Pension Regulations for the Army
1961 as well as the Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008, has laid
down the following principles governing the grant or refusal of
disability pension.:-
"74. We are of the view that the change in the language of the Rule is
more one of form than of substance.
75. Viewed in isolation, there is clear etymological difference between
the import of the words "shall" and "ordinarily". However, Rule 7 of the
2008 Entitlement Rules has, in our view, to be read as a whole. The Rule
does not end with the statement that, ordinarily, the claimant would not be
called upon to prove the condition of entitlement. It proceeds to clarify
that the onus to prove entitlement would be on the claimant officer "where
the claim is preferred after 15 years of discharge/retirement/
invalidment/release by which time the service documents of the claimant
are destroyed after the prescribed retention period". Clearly, therefore, the
reason for Rule 7 of the 2008 Entitlement Rules having not chosen to
retain the earlier Rule 9 of the 1981 Entitlement Rules in its original form,
is only because, where a belated claim, more than 15 years after discharge,
or retirement, or invalidment, or release, is preferred, the petitioners would
not have retained the original service documents of the claimant. In some
circumstances, it would be unfair to expect the petitioners to be burdened
with the initial onus to prove that the claimant officer, who has preferred
his claim belatedly, is not entitled to it. In such a circumstance, the initial
onus to prove entitlement would be on the officer. It is obviously to clarify
this position that Rule 7 commences with the word "ordinarily". If
anything, therefore, the word "ordinarily" would re-emphasise the position
that the initial onus to prove entitlement remains on the military
establishment, and is not on the officer claiming disability pension, and
that this onus would shift only where the officer approaches, with his
claim, belatedly, more than 15 years after
discharge/retirement/invalidment/ release.
76. Rule 14 of the 2008 Entitlement Rules, which applies to claims
based on diseases, first that, for a disease to be treated as attributable to
military service, it has to be simultaneously established that the disease
arose during the period of military service and that the disease was caused
by conditions of employment in military service. This, again, is obvious,
and cannot be disputed.
77. It goes without saying that the mere fact that the officer may have
contracted the disease during military service would not suffer to entitle
him to disability pension, unless the disease was attributable to the
military service. The petitioners are also correct in their submission that,
with the removal, in the 2008 Entitlement Rules, of the presumption that,
if no note was entered in the record of the officer, at the time of his
induction into military service, to the effect that he was suffering from the
ailment, the ailment would be deemed to be attributable to military
service.
78. The removal of this presumption, from the Entitlement Rules,
does not, however, automatically shift, to the claimant officer, the
responsibility to prove that the disease is attributable to military
service. This is clear from Rule 7, which unmistakably holds that,
ordinarily, the officer would not be called upon to prove the condition
of entitlement.
79. All that the removal of the presumption, contained in Rule 5 of the
1981 Entitlement Rules, of the disease being attributable to the service
where no note, regarding its existence, was contained in the record of the
officer at the time of his enrolment into military service, entails is that it
would be open to the Medical Board to hold that the disease was not
attributable to military service, even if it was not present at the time
of induction of the officer.
80. Even then, the responsibility would remain with the RMB to
demonstrate, in its Report, with cogent reasons to be stated in the
Report that, though the disease was not present at the time of
induction of the officer in service, it was equally not attributable to
the military service undergone by the officer. This would require, in
its wake, the Report to fix attributability of the disease on some other
factor, other than the military service being undergone by the officer.
The RMB cannot seek to content itself with a bald statement that, in
its opinion, the disease or ailment, though contracted during the
tenure of military service of the officer, was not attributable to such
service. The decisions cited supra, including the pronouncement in
Munusamy, remain consistent on this aspect, till date. As the law
stands today, the mere fact that, at the time of induction into service,
the record of the claimant officer did not contain any note to the effect
that he was suffering from the disability or ailment on the basis of
which he later claims disability pension, would not result in any
presumption that the ailment or disability was attributable to military
service. It would remain, however, an indisputable fact that, even in
such cases, the disease or inability arose during the course of military
service. The removal of the presumption would result in the RMB
being open to establish, in its Report, that the disease, even if
contacted during the military service of the concerned officer, was not
attributable to or aggravated by, it.
81. That responsibility has, however, to be assiduously discharged.
The RMB has to record reasons as to why it arrives at the conclusion that
the disease, forming subject matter of the claim for disability pension,
contracted during the military service of the officer, was not attributable to
such service in the absence of any such reason, the claim of the officer,
disability pension, has necessarily to sustain."
8. In applying the aforesaid principles to the cases concerning the grant
of disability pension to personnel suffering from Diabetes Mellitus
Type-II and Obesity, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that
it is incumbent upon the medical authorities to render a clear and
unequivocal opinion as to whether the disability with which the
individual stood afflicted at the time of discharge had arisen during
the course of service and had undergone any deterioration attributable
to the exigencies of service. The medical authorities are mandated to
specifically address whether the compulsions and rigours of service
had the effect of aggravating the said disability. It has further been
emphasized that, while forming such an opinion, the medical
authorities must take into account the entirety of the individual‟s
service career.
9. It is also 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 'Diabetes Mellitus Type-II and Obseity‟,
which led to his discharge from army service, occurred during service.
To disentitle the respondent from claiming the disability pension, the
petitioners were required to plead and demonstrate that the disability
„Diabetes Mellitus Type-II and Obseity‟, which led to discharge of the
respondent, though arisen during army service, was neither
attributable to nor aggravated by army service. The burden to disprove
acceptance of causal connection between the disability and the army
service would also lie on the petitioners.
10.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 disabilities, which
the respondent was found suffering at the time of his discharge from
army service is neither attributable to nor aggravated by the military
service, we have gone through the medical record produced by the
petitioners. The relevant portion of the medical opinion is set out
below:-
Disability Attributabl Aggravate Not Reason/cause/spe
e to service d by connected cific conditions
(Y/N) service with and period in
(Y/N) Service service
(Y/N)
(a) DIABETES No NO Yes It is metabolic
MELLITUS disorder not
TYPE-II related with
(R.73) military service,
as per para 26
Ch.VII of GMO
(b) OBESITY (E.66) NO NO YES It is life style
disease not
related with
military service
11.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 disabilities and the military 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 not a substitute
for clear, unambiguous and cogent medical reasons required to
disentitle the respondent from disability element of pension. Since the
one line opinion of the Medical Board is vague and cryptic, therefore,
same cannot be treated as a substitute to clear, unambiguous and
cogent medical reasons required to disentitle the respondent from
disability pension. We are unable to concur with the conclusion
recorded by the Release Medical Board that the disability suffered by
the respondent is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military
service. In such circumstances, a mere opinion of non-attribution or
non-aggravation, without any supporting analysis or cogent medical
reasoning, cannot be accepted at its face value.
12.We also find ourselves unable to agree with the submission advanced
by learned counsel for the petitioners that, owing to the respondent‟s
young age at the time of enrolment, the disease could not be detected
then and must therefore be treated as pre-existing. This contention is
not borne out from any material placed on record and appears to be
based on conjecture rather than medical evidence.
13.Upon examining the record, we find that the learned Tribunal, after
taking note of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in
Dharamvir Singh Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2013)
7 SCC 316, has concluded that the disease/disability from which the
respondent was subsequently found to be suffering did not exist at the
time of his enrolment into military service. The Tribunal has further
observed that there is nothing on record to indicate that the Medical
Board had opined that such disease could not have been detected at
the time of his enrolment.
14.Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for
the parties and upon a meticulous examination of the record, we find
ourselves in full agreement with the reasoning adopted by the learned
Tribunal while allowing the Original Application preferred by the
respondent.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion and the settled legal principles
governing entitlement to disability pension, we are of the considered
view that the present petition is devoid of merit. Accordingly, the writ
petition is dismissed along with connected CM(s), if any.
(Rajnesh Oswal) (Arun Palli)
Judge Chief Justice
Jammu
20.11.2025
Madan Verma-Secy
Whether order is speaking? Yes.
Whether order is reportable? No.
