Kerala High Court
Union Of India vs Veteran Gnr (Macp Hav) Ajith Kp on 12 August, 2025
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
W.P(C)No.39065 of 2024
: 1 :-
2025:KER:61449
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 39065 OF 2024
(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 21.11.2023 IN OA
NO.263 OF 2022 OF ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL,REGIONAL
BENCH,KOCHI)
PETITIONERS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,
SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110011
2 THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF
COAS'S SECRETARIAT, INTEGRATED HEAD QUARTERS,
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (ARMY), SOUTH BLOCK, DHQ P.O.,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110011
3 THE OIC RECORDS
ARTILLERY RECORDS, C/O 56 APO, PIN - 908802
4 THE PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS
(PENSIONS)
OFFICE OF THE PCDA (P), DRAUPADIGHAT ALLAHABAD, U.
P, PIN - 211014
BY ADV SMT.M.S.KIRAN, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL
RESPONDENTS:
VETERAN GNR (MACP HAV) AJITH KP
NO. 14429461W, NANDANAM, CHERATTUMOOLA,
CHATTUKAPPARA P.O, MANIYOORE VILLAGE,
THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR, PIN - 670592
W.P(C)No.39065 of 2024
: 2 :-
2025:KER:61449
BY ADVS.
SMT.K.R.RENJU
SRI.V.K.SATHYANATHAN
SHRI.VINOD K.C.
SMT.RATI VARMA
ADV.ADI NARAYAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 12.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C)No.39065 of 2024
: 3 :-
2025:KER:61449
AMIT RAWAL,
&
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,JJ.
-------------------------------------
W.P(C).No. 39065 of 2024
---------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of August 2025
JUDGMENT
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J
This writ petition is filed by the respondents in O.A.No.263
of 2022 on the files of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench,
Kochi, challenging the order dated 21.11.2023 granting disability
pension to the applicant.
2. The applicant joined the Indian Army on 19.07.1999.
During 2007-2008, while he was serving in semi field area, he
became depressive and was diagnosed as suffering from Acute
and Transient Psychotic Disorder and was placed in low medical
category. In the year 2012, the applicant was diagnosed as
suffering from Schizophrenia. Subsequently, he was discharged
from service on 31.07.2019. The Release Medical Board assessed
his disability Schizophrenia at 40% for life, but found it neither
attributable to nor aggravated by military service since, its onset
was in a semi field area. Consequently, the disability element of
pension was rejected by the adjudicating authority. The appeals
: 4 :-
2025:KER:61449
preferred by the applicant also ended in dismissal and hence, he
approached the Tribunal by filing the afore O.A.
3. The Tribunal, after considering the materials on record,
allowed the O.A. and granted disability element of pension to the
applicant at 40%, with the benefit of rounding off to 50%, from
his date of discharge.
4. Heard Adv.M.S.Kiran, the learned Central Government
Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Adv.Narayan, the
learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the Release Medical Board has assessed the disability of the
applicant and has found it neither attributable to nor aggravated
by military service and the Tribunal has, without any cogent
materials, disturbed the said opinion. He contended that the
Tribunal is not having the expertise to reassess the opinion of the
Medical Board and substitute its own opinion and hence, the
impugned order cannot be sustained.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent
supported the impugned order and contended that there are no
grounds to interfere with the same. He argued that the onset of
the disease was in the year 2008, while the applicant was serving
: 5 :-
2025:KER:61449
in a field area and even after the diagnosis, he continued in
service, causing its aggravation.
7. In the instant case, there is no dispute regarding the
fact that the applicant was recruited in the Indian Army on
19.07.1999 and at that time he was in a physically and mentally
fit condition. Initially, during 2008, the applicant was diagnosed
with Acute and Transient Psychotic Disorder and was placed in low
Medical category. It is thereafter, during 2012, he was diagnosed
with Schizophrenia. The main reason given by the Medical Board
to find that the disease is neither attributable to nor aggravated
by military service, is the fact that its onset was in a semi field
area(January 2008). But, at the outset itself, we have no
hesitation to find that the afore reason stated by the Medical
Board is not at all a ground to deny disability pension. Regulation
423(a) of Chapter VIII of Regulations for Medical Services, 1983
specifically states that for the purpose of determining whether the
cause of disability or death is or is not attributable to or
aggravated by service, it is immaterial whether the cause giving
rise to the disability or death had occurred in an area declared to
be field service or under normal peace condition. If so, it can be
found that the afore reason given by the Medical Board to deny
: 6 :-
2025:KER:61449
disability pension, cannot be countenanced.
9. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that as per Rule
7 of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to
Armed Forces Personnel, 2008, the onus of proof is on the
petitioners to show that the disability suffered by the applicant is
neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. In
order to discharge the said onus, the Release Medical Board must
substantiate, through cogent reasoning in its report that although
the disease was not present at the time of induction, it is still not
attributable to military service. The Release Medical Board must
identify some other factor, apart from military service, as the
cause of the disease, and it cannot merely assert without
adequate reasons that the disease, though contracted during
military service, is not attributable to such service. The Release
Medical Board must also provide specific reasons for not
considering the disability/disease suffered by the applicant as not
aggravated by service. In such cases, it must not resort to a
vague and stereotyped approach; but must engage in a
comprehensive, logical, and rational analysis of the service and
medical records of the person and must record well reasoned
findings while discharging the onus placed upon it. While
: 7 :-
2025:KER:61449
performing such an exercise, the Medical Board must duly
examine the particulars relevant to the individual concerned, such
as the nature of the job, working hours, dietary restrictions,
places where he was deployed, stress and strain involved in the
job--both mental and physical, etc. and thereafter, must assign
cogent and sound justifications for its conclusions. (See the
decisions in Union of India & others v. Col. Balbir Singh (Retd)
[2025:DHC:5082-DB] and Union of India v. Bhaskaran N [2024
KHC 7223]).
10. In the present case, the report of the Release Medical
Board shows that none of the afore mentioned factors/guidelines
have been followed/considered by the Board while giving its
opinion. Similarly, the appellate authorities have also not
considered the afore factors and guidelines while reaching its
conclusion and have merely extracted the ingredients of
paragraph 54 of Chapter VI of the Guide to Medical
Officers(Military Pensions),2008. These authorities have also not
considered the initial diagnosis of the applicant, his continued
long service thereafter, the subsequent diagnosis and has not
ruled out aggravation during the interregnum. Therefore,
considering the fact that there are no reasons provided to
: 8 :-
2025:KER:61449
reinforce the opinion that the disability is not attributable to or
aggravated by service, we are of the view that the denial of
disability pension to the applicant is not only illegal but also
indefensible.
Be that as it may, as stated earlier, it is to be seen that the
applicant was initially diagnosed with Acute and Transient
Psychotic Disorder, he had continued in service and was later
diagnosed with Schizophrenia in 2012, and thereafter, has
completed his service and was transferred to Pension
Establishment on 31.07.2019. As rightly found by the Tribunal,
the continued service of the applicant in the Indian Army during
all these period would certainly have aggravated the disease,
considering the difficult conditions in military service. Hence,
considering all the afore facts and circumstances, we are of the
view that there is no error or illegality committed by the Tribunal
in granting disability element of pension to the applicant.
Ergo, we find no merit in this writ petition and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE
Sd/-
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
dpk
: 9 :-
2025:KER:61449
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39065/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION,
DATED 17.11.2022, NUMBERED AS O.A.NO.263
OF 2022, FILED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE
THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL
BENCH, KOCHI
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN
O.A.NO.263 OF 2022 FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS DATED 28.07.2023 HEREIN
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
21.11.2023 IN O.A. NO.263 OF 2022 ISSUED
BY THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL
BENCH, KOCHI
