Allowed¶10

Union Of India, v. Ex Hav Amal Singh David Sp

Madras HC7 Mar 2025WP/20414/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, W.P.No.20414 of 2024, decided 07.03.2025 (S.M.Subramaniam & K.Rajasekar): Union of India/Army officials v. Ex Hav Amal Singh David & Registrar, Armed Forces Tribunal; writ allowed and AFT Chennai order (O.A.No.119 of 2021, 02.02.2023) granting disability pension (30% broadbanded to 50%) for Primary Hypertension quashed; disability held neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service (peace-station onset) per Para 179, Pension Regulations for the Army 1961 (Part 1) and Para 43, Chap VI, GMO 2002; Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India (2013) 7 SCC 316 distinguished.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the Armed Forces Tribunal order dated 02.02.2023 in O.A.No.119 of 2021; writ petition allowed; W.M.P.Nos.22344 & 22346 of 2024 closed; no costs. ¶10

Union Of India, Vs Ex Hav Amal Singh David Sp — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the Armed Forces Tribunal order dated 02.02.2023 in O.A.No.119 of 2021; writ petition allowed; W.M.P.Nos.22344 & 22346 of 2024 closed; no costs.

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the first respondent is eligible to claim the disability element of pension under Para 179 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part 1).

¶4

Court's answer

The onset of the first respondent's disability (Primary Hypertension) was in a peace station and he continued to serve in a peace station till retirement; the Release Medical Board therefore properly held the disability as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

Where the medical assessment per se indicates that the claimant is ineligible for disability pension, the observations of the Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh are of no assistance to the claimant; the Tribunal erred in ignoring the Release Medical Board's report and relying upon that judgment.

¶9

Key takeaways

In the Supreme Court case relied on by the Tribunal, the Medical Board had not given any supporting reason and no note of the disease existed in the appellant's service record at acceptance; in the present case, by contrast, medical records were considered along with the nature of the disability suffered.ratio¶8
The order of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chennai dated 02.02.2023 in O.A.No.119 of 2021 is quashed and the writ petition stands allowed; consequently W.M.P.Nos.22344 & 22346 of 2024 are closed, with no costs.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:661. Writ petition under Article 226 (Certiorari) by the Union of India and Army/Defence authorities seeking quashing of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chennai order dated 02.02.2023 in O.A.No.119 of 2021, which had allowed Ex Hav Amal Singh David disability pension @ 30% w.e.f. 01.10.2019, duly broadbanded to 50%, with arrears and interest. The claimant (enrolled 02.09.1995; discharged 30.09.2019 after 24 years 29 days; in receipt of service pension from 01.10.2019) was placed in low medical category P2 (P) for Primary Hypertension; the Release Medical Board held the disability neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service (onset in modified field area/peace station; conceded in terms of Para 43, Chap VI, GMO 2002, amendment 2008), and his claim was rejected under Para 179 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part 1) vide letter dated 30.06.2019, with appeals rejected on 14.09.2020 and 06.07.2021. Holding that, unlike the position in the Supreme Court judgment relied on by the Tribunal (Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 316), where the Medical Board had recorded no supporting reasons, medical records here were duly considered and the medical assessment per se established ineligibility, rendering Dharamvir Singh of no assistance, the Court quashed the Tribunal's order and allowed the writ petition, closing W.M.P.Nos.22344 & 22346 of 2024 with no costs.

¶1

2025:MHC:661

¶2

W.P.No.20414 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 07.03.2025

¶5

CORAM :

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶8

W.P.No.20414 of 2024

¶9

The Union of India

¶10

represented by the Secretary Ministry of Defence Government of India

¶11

South Block, New Delhi 110 011

¶12

The Chief of Army Staff

¶13

Army Head Quarters IHQ DHQ Post, South Block

¶14

New Delhi 110 011

¶15

Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad Uttar Pradesh 211 014

¶16

The Senior Records Officer Records Officer, EME Records Secunderabad 500 021

¶17

Adjutant Generals Branch Addl Directorate Genl of Personnel Services IHQ of MoD (Army), M Block, Room No.100 Church Road, New Delhi 110 001 .. Petitioners

¶18

Page 1 of 10

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

W.P.No.20414 of 2024

¶21

Ex Hav Amal Singh David SP No.14627839H S/o late D.G.Prakasam

¶22

¶23

The Registrar Armed Forces Tribunal Rudra Road St.Thomas Mount Chennai 600 116 .. Respondents

¶24

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records dated 02.02.2023 passed in OA No.119 of 2021 on the file of the 2^nd respondent thereby quashing the impugned order.

¶25

For Petitioners :: Mr.V.Balasubramanian Senior Panel Counsel For Respondents :: Mr.D.Solomon Pandian for R1 R2-Tribunal

¶26

ORDER

¶27

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.)

¶28

Under assail is the order dated 02.02.2023 passed by the Armed

¶29

Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Chennai in O.A.No.119 of 2021.

¶30

The first respondent instituted original application claiming

¶31

Page 2 of 10

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P.No.20414 of 2024

¶34

disability pension @ 30% w.e.f. 01.10.2019, duly broadbanding to 50% with arrears and interest, 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.

¶35

The records would show that the first respondent was enrolled in the Indian Army on 02.09.1995 and discharged from service on 30.09.2019 after rendering 24 years and 29 days of service. It is not in dispute that the first respondent is in receipt of service pension with effect from 01.10.2019. The first respondent was placed in low medical category P2 (P) for disability due to Primary Hypertension and the Release Medical Board considered the disability as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, as the onset of the disability was in modified field area and there is no evidence of stress and strain due to military service. Therefore, the claim of the first respondent for grant of disability pension was rejected vide the letter dated 30.06.2019, as he did not fulfill the conditions laid down in Para 179 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part 1). The first and second appeals preferred by the first respondent were also rejected by the appellate

¶36

_____________ Page 3 of 10_

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.P.No.20414 of 2024

¶39

authorities vide the letters dated 14.09.2020 and 06.07.2021 stating that the disability is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. However, the Armed Forces Tribunal, ignoring the report of the Release Medical Board, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India , has erroneously allowed the claim of the first respondent for grant of disability pension.

¶40

Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties to the lis. Question arises whether the first respondent is eligible to claim disability element of pension under Para 179 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part 1)?

¶41

Para 179 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part 1) reads as under:-

¶42

“179. An individual retired/discharged on completion of tenure or on completion of service limits 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

¶43

Page 4 of 10

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

W.P.No.20414 of 2024

¶46

invalided out of service and shall 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 service pension/service gratuity, if already sanctioned and paid, shall be adjusted against the disability pension/service element, as the case may be.”

¶47

The above provision in clear terms indicates that a disability which

¶48

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 first respondent, the disability and the reasons recorded by the competent authority read as under:-

¶49

S.	*Disability*	*Reason(s)*
*No.*
(a)	Primary Hypertension	Primary Hypertension is a lifestyle disorder and is per se not attributable to service. Aggravation is conceded when onset occurs while serving in Fd/Cl Ops/HAA. In the instant case, the onset of disability was in a peace station and the individual continue to serve in peace till retirement. Hence, the disability is conceded as neither attributable to nor aggravated by service in terms of Para 43, Chap VI, GMO 2002, amendment 2008.

¶50

The Tribunal, while granting relief in favour of the first respondent,

¶51

relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

¶52

Page 5 of 10

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

W.P.No.20414 of 2024

¶55

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:-

¶56

“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 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

¶57

Page 6 of 10

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶59

W.P.No.20414 of 2024

¶60

Authority would be able to appreciate.”

¶61

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, medical records are considered along with the nature of disability suffered by the first respondent.

¶62

The disability reasons stated in the case of the first respondent specifically reveal that the onset of disability was in a peace station and the individual continued to serve in peace station till his retirement. Hence, Release Medical Board has properly held the disability as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. When the medical assessment per se would indicate that the first 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 first respondent to secure the relief from the hands of the Tribunal.

¶63

_____________ Page 7 of 10_

¶64

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶65

W.P.No.20414 of 2024

¶66

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the order impugned

¶67

passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chennai dated 02.02.2023 in O.A.No.119 of 2021 is quashed and the writ petition stands allowed. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.22344 & 22346 of 2024 are closed. No costs.

¶68

Index : yes (S.M.S.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) Neutral citation : yes 07.03.2025 ss

¶69

¶70