Madras High Court
Unknown vs The Registrar on 7 March, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
2025:MHC:660
W.P.No.23484 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.03.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.P.No.23484 of 2024
1. Union of India
through the Secretary to Government of India
Ministry of Defence
South Block, New Delhi 110 011
2. Chief of the Army Staff
South Block, Integrated Headquarters of
Ministry of Defence (Army), DHQ Post
South Block, New Delhi 110 011
3. Army Group Insurance Fund
Adjutant General's Branch
Integrated Headquarters of Ministry
of Defence (Army)
Rao Tula Ram Marg
Post Bag No.14, Vasant Vihar Post
New Delhi 110 057
4. The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension)
Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad
Uttar Pradesh 211 014
____________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 06:14:57 pm )
W.P.No.23484 of 2024
5. Additional Directorate General of
Manpower (Policy & Planning)/ MP 5(B)
Adjutant General Branch
Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Army)
Wing No.3, Ground Floor, West Block III
R.K.Puram, New Delhi 110 066 .. Petitioners
v.
1. The Registrar
Armed Forces Tribunal
Rudra Road
St.Thomas Mount
Chennai 600 116
2. IC-31598X Col A Jaganarayanan (Retd) .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records dated 31.10.2023
passed in O.A.No.86 of 2022 on the file of the 1st respondent thereby
quashing the impugned order.
For Petitioners :: Mr.V.Balasubramanian
Senior Panel Counsel
For Respondents :: R1-Tribunal
Mr.M.Santharam for R2
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.)
Under assail is the order dated 31.10.2023 passed by the Armed
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 06:14:57 pm )
Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Chennai in O.A.No.86 of 2022.
2. The second respondent instituted original application claiming
disability pension w.e.f. 01.04.2006 from 30% duly broadbanded to 50%
for life, which was allowed by the Armed Forces Tribunal by the impugned
order. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents in the original application have
instituted the present writ petition before this Court.
3. The records would show that the second respondent was
commissioned in the Indian Army on 21.12.1975 (PC) and retired from
service on 31.03.2006 on reaching the age of superannuation. The second
respondent was placed in low medical category S1H1A1P2E1 for disability
'Primary Hypertension', which was regarded as 'NANA' with degree of
disablement @ 30% for life and the Release Medical Board considered the
said disability as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.
Therefore, the initial claim of the second respondent for grant of disability
pension was rejected by the competent authority vide the letter dated
31.01.2006. After a long delay of 15 years, the second respondent preferred
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 06:14:57 pm )
petitions on 15.06.2021, 13.09.2021 and 02.12.2021 claiming disability
pension, which were rejected by the competent authorities vide the letters
dated 19.07.2021, 27.10.2021 and 08.02.2022 respectively stating that the
disability is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.
4. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties to the lis.
Question arises whether the second respondent is eligible to claim disability
element of pension under Regulation 53 of the Pension Regulations for the
Army, 1961 (Part 1)?
5. Para 53 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part 1)
reads as under:-
“53.(1). An officer retired on completion of tenure or
on completion of terms of engagement or on attaining
the age of 50 years (irrespective of their period of
engagement), if found suffering from a disability
attributable to or aggravated by military Service and
recorded by service Medical Authorities, shall be
deemed to have been invalided out of service and shall
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 06:14:57 pm )
be granted disability pension from the date of
retirement, if the accepted degree of disability is 20
percent or more, and service element if the degree of
disability is less than 20 per cent. The retiring
pension/retiring gratuity, if already sanctioned and
paid, shall be adjusted against the disability
pension/service element, as the case may be.”
6. The above provision in clear terms indicates that a disability which
is either attributable to or aggravated by military service and so recorded by
Release Medical Board, may be taken into consideration for grant of
disability pension. In the case of second respondent, the reason recorded by
the competent authority would show that the disability of 'Primary
Hypertension' suffered by the second respondent is not attributable to or
aggravated by military service vide the letter dated 31.01.2006. While so,
after a lapse of about 15 years, fresh petitions were filed by the second
respondent, which were rejected by the petitioners stating that the claim for
disability pension was already rejected vide the letter dated 31.01.2006
itself. The rejection order of the year 2002 has been challenged before the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 06:14:57 pm )
Armed Forces Tribunal in O.A.No.86 of 2022. Thus the original
application itself is hit by Section 22 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act,
since it was filed beyond the time limit prescribed under the Act.
7. The Tribunal, without even going into the issue of limitation, has
erroneously granted the relief in favour of the second respondent by relying
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharamvir
Singh v. Union of India and others, (2013) 7 SCC 316. In the said case, the
Supreme Court, in paragraph 32, reiterating the principles that each case and
its facts ought to be considered with reference to the nature of disability and
with reference to the medical evidence available on record, observed as
follows:-
“32. Para 1 of Chapter II -- “Entitlement: General
Principles” specifically stipulates that certificate of a
constituted medical authority vis-a-vis invalidating
disability, or death, forms the basis of compensation payable
by the Government, the decision to admit or refuse
entitlement is not solely a matter which can be determined
finally by the medical authorities alone. It may require also
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 06:14:57 pm )
the consideration of other circumstances e.g. service
conditions, pre and post-service history, verification of
wound or injury, corroboration of statements, collecting and
weighing the value of evidence, and in some instances,
matters of military law and dispute. For the said reasons the
Medical Board was required to examine the cases in the
light of etiology of the particular disease and after
considering all the relevant particulars of a case, it was
required to record its conclusion with reasons in support, in
clear terms and language which the Pension Sanctioning
Authority would be able to appreciate.”
8. In the case before the Supreme Court, the Medical Board had not
given any reason in support of its opinion, particularly when there is no note
of such disease or disability available in the service record of the appellant
therein at the time of acceptance for military service. However, in the
present case, the nature of disability suffered by the second respondent is
found to be neither attributable to or aggravated by military service by the
competent authority based on the report of the Release Medical Board.
When the medical assessment per se would indicate that the second
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 06:14:57 pm )
respondent is ineligible for disability pension, the observations of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh's case would be of no
assistance to the second respondent to secure the relief from the hands of the
Tribunal.
9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the order impugned
passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chennai dated
31.10.2023 in O.A.No.86 of 2022 is quashed and the writ petition stands
allowed. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.25672 & 25673 of 2024 are closed. No
costs.
Index : yes (S.M.S.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.)
Neutral citation : yes 07.03.2025
ss
To
1. The Secretary to Government of India
Ministry of Defence
South Block
New Delhi 110 011
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 06:14:57 pm )
2. The Chief of Army Staff
South Block, Integrated Headquarters of
Ministry of Defence (Army), DHQ Post
South Block, New Delhi 110 011
3. The Army Group Insurance Fund
Adjutant General's Branch
Integrated Headquarters of Ministry
of Defence (Army)
Rao Tula Ram Marg
Post Bag No.14, Vasant Vihar Post
New Delhi 110 057
4. The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension)
Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad
Uttar Pradesh 211 014
5. The Additional Directorate General of
Manpower (Policy & Planning)/ MP 5(B)
Adjutant General Branch
Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Army)
Wing No.3, Ground Floor, West Block III
R.K.Puram, New Delhi 110 066
6. The Registrar
Armed Forces Tribunal
Rudra Road
St.Thomas Mount
Chennai 600 116
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 06:14:57 pm )
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
AND
K.RAJASEKAR,J.
ss
07.03.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 06:14:57 pm )
