[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Union Of India vs Mohanan Madathil Koliyat on 26 February, 2026
W.P.(C). No. 37473/2025 :1:
2026:KER:17168
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 37473 OF 2025
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT:
1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110 011
2 OIC RECORDS, ARTILLERY RECORDS, NASIK ROAD CAMP, C/O 56 APO,
MAHARASHTRA, REPRESENTED BY CAPTAIN HIMANSHU TYAGI, S/O MR.
RAVINDER TYAGI, RESIDING AT WILLINGDON ISLAND, NAVAL BASE,
KOCHI, PIN - 682 004.
BY ADV SMT.GAYATHRI KRISHNAN, CGC
RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT:
MOHANAN MADATHIL KOLIYAT, AMSYA, KANDONTHAR P.O.,
MATHAMANGALAM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670
306
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.R.JAGADEESH
SHRI.ADI NARAYANAN
SHRI.JOSE JOB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.02.2026,
THE COURT ON 26.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C). No. 37473/2025 :2:
2026:KER:17168
'C.R'
K. NATARAJAN & JOHNSON JOHN, JJ.
---------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). No. 37473 of 2025
---------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of February, 2026
JUDGMENT
Johnson John, J.
The order of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi
allowing disability element of pension to the respondent is under
challenge in this writ petition filed by the Union of India.
2. Heard Smt. Gayathri Krishnan, the learned Central Government
Counsel appearing for the Union of India and Sri. Adi Narayanan, the
learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The learned Central Government Counsel argued that the
opinion of the Release Medical Board would clearly show that the
disability due to diagnosis (Mitral Valve Prolapse V-67) is neither
attributable to nor aggravated by military service and in the absence of
any causal connection between the disease or injury and the military
W.P.(C). No. 37473/2025 :3:
2026:KER:17168
service, the Tribunal is not justified in granting the disability element of
pension to the respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the onus of
proving that the disability is not attributable to the military service, is on
the authority, especially when an individual is physically fit at the time of
enrolment and no note regarding adverse physical factor is made at the
time of entering service and in this case, the Release Medical Board has
not given any reason for the conclusion that the disease is constitutional
even though the respondent is recommended to be released in medical
category CEE (permanent).
5. The respondent was enrolled in the Regiment of Artillery on
15.12.1971 and was discharged from service on 01.06.1987 after
completing 15 years and 168 days of service. The respondent was
discharged before completion of his service as he was recommended to
be released in medical category "CEE permanent". According to the
respondent, his repeated request for grant of disability pension was not
allowed and subsequently during May, 2017, he filed Annexure A2
application seeking disability pension; but, the same was declined as per
W.P.(C). No. 37473/2025 :4:
2026:KER:17168
Annexure A3 on the ground that his disability was neither attributable to
nor aggravated by military service.
6. Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961
deals with the primary conditions for the grant of disability pension and
the same reads thus:
"173. Primary conditions for the grant of disability
pension. -- Unless otherwise specifically provided a disability
pension may be granted to an individual who is invalided from
service on account of a disability which is attributable to or
aggravated by military service and is assessed at 20 per cent
or above."
7. The relevant portions in appendix II to the said Regulations read
as follows:
"2. Disablement or death shall be accepted as due to military service provided it is
certified that--
(a) The disablement is due to wound, injury or disease which--
(i) is attributable to military service; or
(ii) existed before or arose during military service and has been and remains
aggravated thereby;
(b) the death was due to or hastened by--
(i) a wound, injury or disease which was attributable to military service, or
(ii) the aggravation by military service of a wound, injury or disease which
existed before or arose during military service.
Note.--The rule also covers cases of death after discharge/invaliding from service.
W.P.(C). No. 37473/2025 :5:
2026:KER:17168
3. There must be a causal connection between disablement or death and military
service for attributability or aggravation to be conceded.
4. In deciding on the issue of entitlement all the evidence, both direct and
circumstantial, will be taken into account and the benefit or reasonable doubt will be
given to the claimant. This benefit will be given more liberally to the claimant in field
service case."
8. A careful examination of the aforesaid Regulation 173 read with
Appendix II would reveal that disability must be attributable to or
aggravated by military service for the purpose of grant of disability
pension and what amounts to disability has been elaborated in Appendix
II of the Regulations as quoted above. From Appendix II, it can be seen
that there must be a casual connection between disablement or death
and military service for attributability to be conceded. Further, clause 4
of Appendix II provides that in deciding on the issue of entitlement, it is
necessary to consider all the evidence and the benefit of reasonable
doubt will be given to the claimant.
9. Regulation 423 of the Regulations for Medical Services for
Armed Forces, 1983 ("Regulations, 1983" for short) provides how a
disability can be attributed to service and the same is extracted below
for convenient reference:-
"423. Attributability to service.-- (a) For the purpose of determining
W.P.(C). No. 37473/2025 :6:
2026:KER:17168
whether the cause of a disability or death is or is not attributable to service,
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 conditions. It is, however, essential to establish
whether the disability or death bore a casual connection with the service
conditions. All evidence, both direct and circumstantial, will be taken into
account and benefit of reasonable doubt, if any, will be given to the
individual. The evidence to be accepted as reasonable doubt, for the
purpose of these instructions, should be of a degree of cogency, which
though not reaching certainty, nevertheless carry the high degree of
probability. In this connection, it will be remembered that proof beyond
reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond a shadow of doubt. If the
evidence is so strong against an individual as to leave only a remote
possibility in his favour, which can be dismissed with the sentence 'of
course it is possible but not in the least probable' the case is proved beyond
reasonable doubt. If on the other hand, the evidence be so evenly balanced
as to render impracticable a determinate conclusion one way or the other,
then the case would be one in which the benefit of the doubt could be given
more liberally to the individual, in cases occurring in Field Service/Active
Service Areas.
(b) The cause of a disability or death resulting from wound or injury, will be
regarded as attributable to service if the wound/injury was sustained during the
actual performance of 'duty' in Armed Forces. In case of injuries which were self-
inflicted or due to an individual's own serious negligence or misconduct, the
board will also comment how far the disablement resulted from self-infliction,
negligence or misconduct.
(c) The cause of a disability or death resulting from a disease will be regarded
as attributable to Service when it is established that the disease arose during
Service and the conditions and circumstances of duty in the Armed Forces
W.P.(C). No. 37473/2025 :7:
2026:KER:17168
determined and contributed to the onset of the disease. Cases, in which it is
established that Service conditions did not determine or contribute to the onset
of the disease but influenced the subsequent course of the disease, will be
regarded as aggravated by the service. A disease which has led to an individual's
discharge or death will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service if no note
of it was made at the time of the individual's acceptance for service in the Armed
Forces. However, if medical opinion holds, for reasons to be stated that the
disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior to
acceptance for service, the disease will not be deemed to have arisen during
service.
(d) The question, whether a disability or death is attributable to or
aggravated by service or not, will be decided as regards its medical aspects by a
Medical Board or by the medical officer who signs the death certificate. The
Medical Board/Medical Officer will specify reasons for their/his opinion. The
opinion of the Medical Board/Medical Officer, insofar as it relates to the actual
cause of the disability or death and the circumstances in which it originated will
be regarded as final. The question whether the cause and the attendant
circumstances can be attributed to Service will, however, be decided by the
pension sanctioning authority.
(e) To assist the medical officer who signs the death certificate or the medical
board in the case of an invalid, the CO unit will furnish a report on:
(i) AFMS F-81 in all cases other than those due to injuries.
(ii) IAFY-2006 in all cases of injuries other than battle injuries.
(f) In cases where award of disability pension or reassessment of disabilities is
concerned, a Medical Board is always necessary and the certificate of a single
medical officer will not be accepted except in case of stations where it is not
possible or feasible to assemble a regular Medical Board for such purposes. The
certificate of a single medical officer in the latter case will be furnished on a
Medical Board form and countersigned by the ADMS (Army)/DMS (Navy)/DMS
(Air)."
10. The learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the
petitioner relied upon the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in
W.P.(C). No. 37473/2025 :8:
2026:KER:17168
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.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent argued
that a careful examination of the Regulation 423 of the Regulations,
1983 would show that a disease which has led to an individual"s
discharge or death will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service if
no note of it was made at the time of the individual's acceptance for
service in the Armed Forces, and in this case, a perusal of the medical
board proceedings would show that no reasons have been assigned for
recording the conclusion that the disease is constitutional and the same
is not attributable to or aggrieved by military service.
W.P.(C). No. 37473/2025 :9:
2026:KER:17168
12. In Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and Others [(2013) 7
SCC 316), the Honourable Supreme Court held that a member of Armed
Forces is presumed to be in sound physical and mental condition upon
entering service, if there is no note or entry to the contrary in his
records. In the event, he is subsequently discharged from service on
medical grounds, the onus of proof that the deterioration in his health
was not due to service conditions lie on the employer. At paragraph 34
of the said judgment the Apex Court held thus:
"34. As per Rule 423(a) of the General Rules for the purpose of
determining a question whether the cause of a disability or death resulting
from disease is or is not attributable to service, 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 conditions.
"Classification of diseases" have been prescribed at Chapter IV of Annexure
I; under Para 4 post-traumatic epilepsy and other mental changes resulting
from head injuries have been shown as one of the diseases affected by
training, marching, prolonged standing, etc. Therefore, the presumption
would be that the disability of the appellant bore a causal connection with the
service conditions. "
13. In Union of India and another v. Rajbir Singh [(2015) 12
SCC 264], the Honourable Supreme Court held that provision for
W.P.(C). No. 37473/2025 : 10 :
2026:KER:17168
payment for disability pension is a beneficial provision which ought to
be interpreted liberally so as to benefit those who have been sent home
with disability at times even before they completed their tenure in the
Armed Forces.
14. In Veer Pal Singh v. Secretary, Ministry of Defence
[(2013) 8 SCC 83], the Apex Court held that although, the courts are
extremely loath to interfere with the opinion of the experts, there is
nothing like exclusion of judicial review of the decision taken on the
basis of such opinion.
15. In this case, part III of the Form wherein the opinion of the
medical board is given, the following entries are made:
"CONFIDENTIAL
PART III
OPINION OF THE MEDICAL BOARD
(Not to be communicated to the individual)
Note: Clear and decisive answers should be filled in by the Board. Expressions such as
'might', 'may', probably', should be avoided
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Did the disability/ies exist before entering service No
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. (a) In respect of each disability the Medical Board on the evidence before it will express
its view as to whether:
(i) It is attributable to service during peace or under field
service conditions; or
(ii) It has been aggravated thereby and remain so; or
(iii) It is not connected with service.
The Board should state fully the reasons in regard to each disability on which its
opinion is based.
W.P.(C). No. 37473/2025 : 11 :
2026:KER:17168
Disability A B C
Mitral valve No No Yes
Prolapse V-67
(b) In respect of each disability shown as attributable under A, the Board should state
fully, the specific condition and period in service which caused the disability.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) In respect of each disability shown as aggravated under B, the Board should state fully:
(i) The specific condition and period in service which aggravated the disability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Whether the effects of such aggravation still persist.
NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) If the answer to (ii) is in the affirmative, whether effect of aggravation will persist for a
material period.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) In the case of a disability under C, the Board should state what exactly in their opinion is
the cause thereof.
The disease is constitutional
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONFIDENTIAL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. (a) Was the disability attributable to the individual's own negligence or misconduct? If
so, in what way?
No
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) If not attributable, was it aggravated by negligence or misconduct? If so, in what way
and to what percentage of the total disablement?
No
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Has the individual refused to undergo operation/treatment? If so, individual's reasons
will be recorded.
No
Note: in case of refusal of operation/treatment certificate from the individual will be
attached.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) Has the effect of refusal been explained to and fully understood by him/her viz. a
reduction in, or the entire withholding of, and disability pension to which he/she might
otherwise be entitled?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) Do the Medical Board consider it probable that the operation/treatment would have
cured the disability or reduced its percentage?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). No. 37473/2025 : 12 :
2026:KER:17168
(f) If the reply to (e) is affirmative, what is the probable percentage to which the
disablement could be reduced by operation/treatment?
NA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(g) Do the Medical Board consider the operation to be severe and dangerous to life?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(h) Do the Medical Board consider the individual's refusal to submit to operation/treatment
reasonable
Give reasons in suport of the opinion specifying the operation/treatment recommended.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. What is present degree of disablement as compared with a healthy person of the same
age and sex?
(Percentage will be expressed as 'Nil' or as follows):
1-5%, 6-10%, 11-14%, 15-19% और उसके बाद 20% से लेकर 100% तक दस के गुणकों में
1-5%, 6-10%, 11-14%, 15-19% and thereafter in multiples of ten from 20% to 100%
Disablity (as Percentage of Probable Composite
numbered in Disablement duration of this assessment (all
question 1, part II) degree of disabilities)
disablement
Mitral valve 20% 30% Two Yrs 20% 30%
Prolapse V-67
Twenty % Twenty %
Thirty % Thirty %
CONFIDENTIAL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Is the individual in need of further treatment and, if so, of what nature and for how long
is it likely to be required?
No
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Does the individual require an attendant? If so, (i) whole or part time; (ii) permanently or
temporarily (iii) if temporarily, for how long?
No
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended to be released in med cat CEE (perm)
Signature : President ..........
sd/-
Place: (D K Sen)
L. Col
Date: 13 Mar 87 President Medical Board
W.P.(C). No. 37473/2025 : 13 :
2026:KER:17168
Signature : Member .............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. The aforesaid entries in part III of the form reveals that no
reasons have been assigned in support of the conclusion that the disease
is constitutional, in spite of the fact that it has been specifically
mentioned therein that the medical board should state fully the reasons
in regard to each disability on which its opinion is based.
17. In Rajumon T. M v. Union of India and others (2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1064), the Honourable Supreme Court held thus in
paragraphs 20, 21 and 22:
"20. In our opinion, the requirement to give reasons by the Medical
Board is crucial, critical, decisive and necessary for the purpose of
granting or denying disability pension and it is not a mere formality, but a
necessary material on the basis of which the pension sanctioning
authority has to decide about the grant or refusal of disability pension.
21. As noticed above, it has been specifically provided under Clause (d)
of Regulation 423 as quoted that the question as to whether the disability
is attributable to or aggravated by service or not, will be decided as
regards its medical aspects by the Medical Board and the Medical Board
will specify reasons for their opinion and the question whether the cause
and attendant circumstances can be attributed to service will be decided
by the pension sanctioning authority.
22. Thus, this requirement to give reasons by the Medical Board about
W.P.(C). No. 37473/2025 : 14 :
2026:KER:17168
their opinion is in our view absolutely necessary as also required under
Regulation 423(d) for the reason that the fate of the future career of the
serviceman is going to be decided by the opinion of the Medical Board,
which is to be treated as final as regards the cause of disability and the
circumstances in which the disability originated. The continuation of the
service of the concerned serviceman and as to whether he will be entitled
to disability pension is dependent on the opinion of the Medical Board
which is also to be treated as the final one."
18. In view of the above legal position, it is clear that when the
serviceman is discharged from service and denied the disability element
of pension on the basis of a medical opinion which is devoid of reasons,
it would strike at the root of the action taken by the authority and such
action cannot be sustained in law. In the present case, as noticed from
part III of the form, it is clear that the medical board has not given any
reasons for arriving at the conclusion that the disease 'Mitral valve
Prolapse V-67' is constitutional. The said opinion or conclusion is
without assigning any reasons as to how the medical board has come to
the conclusion that the disease is constitutional. It is well settled that
there is a difference between the conclusion or opinion and reasons to
support such a conclusion or opinion and in the absence of any reasons
in support of such a conclusion or opinion, the same cannot be treated
W.P.(C). No. 37473/2025 : 15 :
2026:KER:17168
as reasons for denial of the disability element of pension to the
respondent.
19. In Union of India v. Parashotam Dass (2025) 5 SCC 786,
the Honourable Supreme Court held that where there is denial of
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.
W.P.(C). No. 37473/2025 : 16 :
2026:KER:17168
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."
20. As noticed earlier, the medical board has not stated any
reasons for their opinion that the disease is constitutional and we find no
jurisdictional error or error apparent on the face of the record warranting
interference by this Court 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. 37473/2025 : 17 :
2026:KER:17168
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 37473 OF 2025
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE O.A 70/2018 ALONG WITH ALL
ANNEXURES, DATED 03-01-2018 FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS HEREIN IN O.A. 70/2018 DATED 04-05-
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE
ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, KOCHI,
DATED 04.01.2022 IN O.A. NO. 70/2018
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
/True Copy/
P.S to Judge.
rv
