"(i) To declare that the disability 'Head injury with left
frontal Contusion' and 'Organic Brain Syndrome' of the
applicant are originated due to stress and strain of Military
service and hence it is attributable/aggravated by Military
service.
(ii) To set aside Annexure A-3 RMB proceedings so far as it
states that the disability is neither attributable to nor
aggravated by Military service.
(iii) To call for the records leading to Annexure A-4
communication and set aside the same as unjust and illegal.
(iv) To direct the respondents to grant disability pension to
the applicant @50% after rounding off 40% disability
suffered by the applicant from the date of discharge with all
4. The Armed Forces Tribunal, after considering the
materials on record, allowed the O.A. and granted disability
pension to the respondent herein. The operative portion of the
3) Delay in payment of disability pension will attract interest
at 9% on arrears".
2025:KER:40649
5. It is aggrieved by the afore order this writ petition has
been filed.
6. Heard Adv.T.V.Vinu, the learned CGC appearing for the
petitioners and Adv.T.R.Jagadeesh appearing for the respondent.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit
that the order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal cannot be
sustained, since the injury was caused by an accidental fall from
the first floor of the residence of the respondent while he was off
duty and the same cannot be considered as attributable to or
aggravated by military service. He further submitted that there is
no casual connection between the accident, injury and the
military service and the Release Medical Board has categorically
opined that the injuries are not attributable to or aggravated by
military service. He also argued that the Tribunal went wrong in
admitting the application which was filed after a delay of more
than 12 years from the date of discharge of the respondent.
8. The learned Counsel for the respondent supported the
2025:KER:40649
impugned order and submitted that there are no grounds to
interfere with it.
9. The materials on record goes to show that the
respondent herein was enrolled in the Army on 19/09/1978 and
that he had served in the Army for 26 years and 12 days. He was
discharged on 4.10.2003, while functioning as Operation Room
Assistant in Jalandhar. It is also discernible that on 28/6/1999,
the respondent herein had a fall from the first floor of his
residence and had sustained head injury, which resulted in his
release from Army Service pursuant to a Release Medical Board,
which noted the following two disabilities:
"(i) Head Injury with Frontal Contusion S6.6 assessed at
20% for life and as not related to service based on IAFY
2006 (Injury Report dated 6.1.2000),
(ii) Organic Brain Syndrome F07.9, as a result of Head
Injury, assessed at 20% for life and not attributable to
service since this is a result of the head injury. The
composite disability was assessed as 40% for life".
The composite disability was thus assessed by the Release
2025:KER:40649
Medical Board at 40%, but found that it is neither attributable to
nor aggravated by service since, the respondent herein was 'off
duty' at his residence, when the incident took place.
10. But as rightly found by the Tribunal, at the time when
the incident took place, the respondent herein was in duty
station, at his official quarters in the camp and was not on leave.
The appellants also do not dispute this fact. If so, it can be safely
concluded that there is a reasonable nexus and casual connection
between the incident resulting in the disability and the military
service rendered by the respondent herein. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in the decisions in Union of India and Another v.
Surendra Pandey [(2015) 13 SCC 625] and Sukhwant
Singh v. Union of India & Others [(2012) 12 SCC 228],
while discussing the principles that should be the guiding factors
for deciding the question of attributability or aggravation of a
person who is on authorised leave has observed thus:
"....The mere fact of a person being on 'duty' or
otherwise, at the place of posting or on leave, is not the sole
2025:KER:40649
criteria for deciding attributability of disability/death. There
has to be a relevant and reasonable casual connection,
howsoever remote, between the incident resulting in such
disability/death and military service for it to be attributable.
This conditionality applies even when a person is posted and
present in his unit. It should similarly apply when he is on
leave; notwithstanding both being considered as 'duty'."
(Emphasis supplied)
In the light of the afore dictum and the facts as narrated afore,
we are of the view that it cannot be stated that the injuries
sustained by the fall is not attributable to the military service of
the respondent herein.
11. As far as the delay on the part of the respondent herein
in approaching the Tribunal seeking disability pension is
concerned, the law is well settled in Union of India v. Tarsem
Singh [(2008) 8 SCC 648] wherein it has been held thus :
"To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be
rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is
sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is
sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of
2025:KER:40649
the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing
wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing
wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in
seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the
continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates
a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the
exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or
administrative decision which related to or affected several
others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the
settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be
entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or
refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of
delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the
claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc.,
affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine
of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential
relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the
principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As
a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential
relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior
to the date of filing of the writ petition."
2025:KER:40649
12. If so, in the light of the afore dictum and considering
the fact that the claim is based on a continuing wrong and the
fact that the Tribunal has only awarded disability pension for the
period starting from three years before the date of filing the O.A.,
we find no reason to intervene with it.
13. The upshot of the afore discussions is that, there is no
merit in this writ petition and the same is only to be dismissed.
Ergo, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Costs made easy.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
Judge
Sd/-
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN
Judge
dpk
2025:KER:40649
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6902/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF O.A.NO.240 OF 2017 ALONG
WITH M.A.NO.471 OF 2017, PRESENTED
BEFORE THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL,
REGIONAL BENCH, KOCHI ON 21.07.2017 BY
THE RESPONDENT HEREIN
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN
O.A.NO.240 OF 2017 FILED BEFORE THE
ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH,
KOCHI BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN M.A. NO OF
471 OF 2017 IN O.A. NO 240 OF 2017
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
26.11.2021 IN O.A.NO.240 OF 2017 ISSUED
BY THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL
BENCH, KOCHI
