[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Union Of India Through Its Secretary To ... vs No.13767121A Ex Rfn Surinder Singh S/O ... on 12 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
2026:JKLHC-JMU:174-DB
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP(C) No.1291/2024
Reserved On: 03.02.2026
Pronounced on: 12 .02.2026
Uploaded on: 13.02.2026
S
1. Union of India through its Secretary to Government of India,
Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi-110011.
2. Additional Director General Personnel Services,
Adjutant General‟s Branch, Integrated HQ of Ministry of
Defence (Army), DHQ PO, New Delhi-110001
3. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension).
Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh-211014
...Petitioners(s)
Through:-
Mr. Vikas Sharma, Sr. Panel Counsel for
UOI
Versus
No.13767121A Ex RFN Surinder Singh S/o Tarsem Singh
R/o Village Regal P/O Mawa Tehsl Hiranagar, District Kathua
...Respondent(s)
Through:- None
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Kumar "J"
1. By this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, Union of India and others throw challenge to an
order and judgment dated 22nd September, 2022 passed by the Armed
Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench Srinagar at Jammu ["AFT"] in OA
No.463/2019 titled Surinder Singh v. Union of India and others,
2026:JKLHC-JMU:174-DB
whereby the AFT has allowed OA and held the respondent entitled to
disability pension @ 50% as against 40%, after being rounded off.
Strong 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. 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. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners 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.
4. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the respondent was
initially enrolled in Indian Army on 07.07.2001 in a fit state of health
and discharged on 31.07.2018. Before discharge, the respondent was
brought before a duly constituted Release Medical Board, which
assessed the disability incurred by the respondent "Schizophrenia" @
40% for life, however, the same has been regarded as neither
attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Respondent‟s claim
2026:JKLHC-JMU:174-DB
for grant of disability pension was, accordingly, rejected by the
petitioners. The first appeal filed by the respondent was also came to be
rrejected, which constrained the respondent to approach the Tribunal.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed OA No. 463 of 2019
before the AFT seeking inter alia a direction to the petitioners herein to
grant the disability element of disability pension w.e.f. 01.08.2018 @
50% as against 40% by rounding it off. The OA was contested by the
petitioners herein and in the reply affidavit filed, the stand taken was
that the invaliding disease in the case of the respondent was neither
attributable to nor aggravated by military service, hence he 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.
6. 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 @ 40% 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.
7. 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
2026:JKLHC-JMU:174-DB
considering the relevant rules, regulations and legal positions 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.
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.
2026:JKLHC-JMU:174-DB
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.
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
2026:JKLHC-JMU:174-DB
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 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
2026:JKLHC-JMU:174-DB
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).
8. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the only question that
needs 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.
2026:JKLHC-JMU:174-DB
9. Before we proceed further, it needs to be taken note of that
respondent-Surinder Singh having been discharged for disablement in
the year 2018 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.
10. To disentitle the respondent from claiming the disability pension,
the petitioners are required to plead and demonstrate that the disability
„Schizophenia, 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.
11. 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:-
Disability Attributable Aggravated Not Reason/Cause/Specific
to service by service connected condition and period
(Y/N) (Y/N) with in service
service
(Y/N)
Schizophrenia No No Yes Justification attached
2026:JKLHC-JMU:174-DB
12. As per the medical record, which is part of the paper-book,
justification is attached, however, we could not find any justification
forming part of the medical record, which could justify the opinion of
the medical board, which regarded the disability suffered by the
respondent neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.
However, in the memo of writ petition, the petitioners have stated the
reason /justification for declaring the disease suffered by the
respondent as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service
as "Onset being in peace area i.e. Dalhousie (HP). Therefore, 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.
13. „Schizophrenia‟ 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.
14. It is not in dispute that when the respondent was accepted in
service he was found physically and mentally fit by the authority and,
2026:JKLHC-JMU:174-DB
therefore, the disease "Schizophrenia", he was found suffering at the
time of his discharge, occurred during service. To disentitle the
respondent from claiming disability element of pension, the petitioners
were required to plead and demonstrate that the disability noted by the
release medical board, though, having arisen during service was neither
attributable to nor aggravated by military service. The burden to prove
absence of causal connection between the disability and the military
service was also on the petitioners.
15. Be that as it may, we are of the considered opinion that the
medical opinion rendered in the case of the respondent is vague and
cryptic. Therefore, benefit of such ambiguity must be given to the
respondent.
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.
(Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge Judge
JAMMU
12.02.2026
Vinod Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
