[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Rajendran P vs Union Of India on 4 February, 2026
W.P.(C) No. 21691/2023 :1:
2026:KER:9080
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 15TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 21691 OF 2023
PETITIONER/APPLICANT:
RAJENDRAN P., NO. 7118581, EX CFN, AGED 65 YEARS
S/O. PAPPUKUTTY, RESIDING AT ROHINI, NEAR VILLAGE OFFICE,
PULIMATH P.O., TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT., PIN - 695 612
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.K.SATHYANATHAN
SHRI.VINOD K.C.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI., PIN - 110011
2 THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF, INTEGRATED HEAD QUARTERS (ARMY),
NEW DELHI., PIN - 110 011.
3 PRINCIPAL, CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (PENSION)
ALLAHABAD, OFFICE OF THE P.C.D.A (P), DRAUPADI GHAT, ALLAHABAD,
UTTAR PRADESH., PIN - 210 014.
R1 TO R3 BY ADV SHRI.P.R.AJITH KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.01.2026,
THE COURT ON 04.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No. 21691/2023 :2:
2026:KER:9080
'C.R'
K. NATARAJAN & JOHNSON JOHN, JJ.
---------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 21691 of 2023
---------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of February, 2026
JUDGMENT
Johnson John, J.
The writ petitioner was the applicant in O.A. No.46 of 2018 before
the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi and as per order
dated 31.08.2022, his application against non grant of disability pension
for 'Generalised Anxiety Disorder' was dismissed for the reason that
there is no basis for the challenge against the valid medical opinion that
the disease was not attributable to or aggravated by military service and
that there is an inordinate delay of more than 31 years in preferring the
claim.
2. Heard Sri. V. K. Sathyanathan, the learned counsel for the writ
petitioner and Sri. P. R. Anith Kumar, the learned counsel for
respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner argued that the writ
petitioner was enrolled in the army on 29.09.1969 and he was invalided
W.P.(C) No. 21691/2023 :3:
2026:KER:9080
out of service on 13.11.1976 due to low medical category. He was
found suffering from disability of 'Neurosis' by the Invaliding Medical
Board to the extent of 30% for two years. For the reason that the
disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service,
he was not granted disability pension and the said order was challenged
in O.A. No. 207 of 2013 before the Armed Forces Tribunal. As per order
dated 23.06.2014, the said application was dismissed mainly for the
reason that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by
the military service and that the disability was only for two years and the
said period of two years expired in the year 1979. However, while
dismissing the application, the Tribunal observed that it is always open
to the applicant to move a petition for holding a re-assessment by the
Medical Board to assess his disability and for that purpose, no direction
of the Tribunal is necessary.
4. Subsequently the Re-assessment Medical Board found that he
has disability of "Generalised Anxiety Disorder" to the extent of 40%
lifelong. But, his claim for disability pension was denied for the reason
that there is nothing in the Re-assessment Medical Board proceedings to
W.P.(C) No. 21691/2023 :4:
2026:KER:9080
show that the disability is attributable to or aggravated by military
service. In the impugned order, the Tribunal also observed that as per
the findings of the Release Medical Board dated 16.10.1976, the
applicant was found suffering from disability of 'Neurosis (300-b)', which
was considered neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service
and assessed at 30% for two years and in the Re-assessment Medical
Board findings recorded after a lapse of about 39 years, he was found
suffering from 'Generalized Anxiety Disorder' at 40% lifelong and that
the Invaliding Medical Board and the Re-Assessment Medical Board have
diagnosed different medical conditions. It is further observed that there
is nothing in the Re- assessment Medical Board report to show that the
disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service and that the
entitlement of a soldier to disability pension cannot be determined on
the basis of a medical examination conducted after more than 39 years
from his date of discharge.
5. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner argued that in view of
Rule 9 of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982,
the applicant cannot be called upon to prove the conditions of
W.P.(C) No. 21691/2023 :5:
2026:KER:9080
entitlements, and that a conjoint and harmonious reading of Rules 5, 9
and 14 of Entitlement Rules (supra), shows that it is to be presumed
that a member have been in sound, physical and mental condition upon
entering service except as to physical disabilities noted or recorded at
the time of entrance and in the event of his being discharged from
service on medical grounds at any subsequent stage, it must be
presumed that any such deterioration in his health which has taken place
is due to such military service.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the
decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors.
v. Keshar Singh (2007) 12 SCC 675, Om Prakash Singh v Union of
India and Ors. (2010) 12 SCC 667, Secretary, Ministry of Defence
and Ors. v. A. V Damodaran (Dead) through LRs. and Ors. (2009)
9 SCC 140 and Union of India and Ors. v. Ram Prakash (2010) 11
SCC 220) and contended that the opinion of the Medical Board on the
question whether the disability is attributable to or aggravated by
military service must be respected and that the opinion expressed by
medical experts could not be lightly brushed aside.
7. In Union of India v. Parashotam Dass (2025) 5 SCC 786,
the Honourable Supreme Court held that where there is denial of
W.P.(C) No. 21691/2023 :6:
2026:KER:9080
fundamental right or jurisdictional error or error apparent on the face of
record, the High Court can interfere by exercising the jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that self-restraint by High
Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is
distinct from putting embargo on High court in exercising such
jurisdiction. In the said decision, the Honourable Supreme Court held
thus in paragraph 30:
"30. How can courts countenance a scenario where even in the
aforesaid position, a party is left remediless? It would neither be
legal nor appropriate for this Court to say something to the contrary
or restrict the aforesaid observation enunciated in the Constitution
Bench judgment in S.N. Mukherjee [S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of
India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 669 : 1991 SCC (L&S)
242] case. We would loath to carve out any exceptions, including
the ones enumerated by the learned Additional Solicitor General
extracted aforesaid as irrespective of the nature of the matter, if
there is a denial of a fundamental right under Part III of the
Constitution or there is a jurisdictional error or error apparent on the
face of the record, the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction.
There appears to be a misconception that the High Court would
reappreciate the evidence, thereby making it into a second appeal,
etc. We believe that the High Courts are quite conscious of the
parameters within which the jurisdiction is to be exercised, and
those principles, in turn, are also already enunciated by this Court."
8. As noticed earlier, as per the findings of the Release Medical
Board dated 16.10.1976, the applicant was found suffering from the
disability of 'Neurosis (300 -b)' and the same was considered as neither
W.P.(C) No. 21691/2023 :7:
2026:KER:9080
attributable to nor aggravated by military service and assessed at 30%
for two years. As per the findings of the Re-assessment Medical Board,
he is suffering from 'Generalised Anxiety Disorder' at 40% lifelong. The
findings of the Re-assessment Medical Board dated 04.08.2015 shows
that the individual since his invalidment has been functional in socio-
occupational spheres, however, he claims to have episodes of anxiety for
which he was taking ayurvedic medications. It is stated that the
present psychiatric evaluation did not reveal persistent and pervasive
anxiety symptoms clinically. The report shows that in view of anxious,
avoidant and negative personality traits on psychometry, he was given
the benefit of psychoeducation and psychotherapy aimed at improving
coping skills; and that he has been advised to follow up with a
Psychiatrist in case of worsening of symptoms. The Re-assessment
Medical Board report shows that evaluation at the time of initial
admission had revealed domestic stressors in the form of worries about
old father's chronic illness (hemiplegia), divorced elder sister and that
after his discharge from service, he worked as a mechanic in a workshop
for 2-3 years and thereafter, he was employed in a spare parts shop and
W.P.(C) No. 21691/2023 :8:
2026:KER:9080
subsequently, he started working in his own agricultural land. In the
absence of any material to indicate that the disability assessed by the
Invaliding Medical Board or in the Re-assessment Medical Board is
attributable to or aggravated by military service, it cannot be held that
there is any denial of fundamental right or jurisdictional error or error
apparent on the face of the record warranting interference under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the opinion expressed by the
medical experts in the initial Medical Board assessment and the Re-
assessment Medical Board, we find that the writ petitioner is not entitled
to derive the benefit of the presumptions on the basis of Rules 5, 9 and
14 of the Entitlement Rules (supra) and therefore, we find that this writ
petition is liable to be dismissed
In the result, this writ petition is dismissed.
sd/-
K. NATARAJAN,
JUDGE.
sd/-
JOHNSON JOHN,
JUDGE.
Rv
W.P.(C) No. 21691/2023 :9:
2026:KER:9080
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 21691 OF 2023
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION OA NO. 46/2018
ALONG WITH ANNEXURES A1 TO A8 DATED 07.12.2017.
Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 19 MAY 2018
SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS
Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31 AUG 2022 IN O.A. NO. OA
46/ 2018 PASSED BY THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL
BENCH, KOCHI.
Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA IN CIVIL APPEAL NO(S) 11485 OF 2018, DATED 08 APRIL,
2019.
Exhibit-P5 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA IN APPEAL NO(S) 4714-4715 OF 2012, DATED 07
NOVEMBER, 2019.
Exhibit-P6 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 11 FEBRUARY, 2009 IN LPA NO.
Exhibit-P7 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 23 MARCH, 2022, IN O.A. NO. 144
OF 2018 PASSED BY THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL
BENCH, KOCHI.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 16.10.1976
EXHIBIT R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE REGULATIONS
FOR MINIMUM QUALIFYING SERVICE FOR PENSION
EXHIBIT R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE REGULATIONS
FOR PRIMARY CONDITIONS FOR THE GRANT OF DISABILITY
PENSION
EXHIBIT R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.08.1977
EXHIBIT R1(e) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.18581/02/PEN DATED 21.09.1977
EXHIBIT R1(f) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO.7118581/COURT CASE/LN/PEN
DATED 17.05.2012
EXHIBIT R1(g) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.7118581/T-1/COURT CASE CELL
DATED 05.08.2014
EXHIBIT R1(h) TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTION LETTER NO.B/12048/3392/GEN/EME
PERS DATED 03.06.2015
EXHIBIT R1(i) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.06.2015
EXHIBIT R1(j) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
NO.G3/VII/EME/2016/CC/C-106 DATED 13.04.2016.
EXHIBIT R1(k) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.G-3/VII/EME/2016/C-280 DATED
14.08.2016
/True Copy/
P.S to Judge
