UNION OF INDIA vs LT. COL. SUNNY THOMAS (RETD.)
- Court
- Kerala High Court
W.P.(C) No.6230/2024 : :
1 CNR : KLHC010831772024
2026:KER:68852
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
TH
THURSDAY, THE 10 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 19TH BHADRA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 6230 OF 2024
ORDER DATED 06.04.2023 IN OA NO. 148 OF 2020 OF ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL,
KOCHI
PETITIONERS:-
1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110 011.
2 THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF, INTEGRATED HEAD QUARTERS (ARMY)
SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110 011.
3 THE ADJUTANT GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE ADJUTANT GENERAL
INTEGRATED HEAD QUARTERS (ARMY) SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN
– 110 011
4 THE CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (PENSION)
OFFICE OF THE PCDA(P) DRAUPATI GHAT, ALLAHABAD, PIN – 211 014.
BY ADV. KUM. S.KRISHNA
RESPONDENTS:-
LT. COL. SUNNY THOMAS (RETD.), NO. SL 3283X PUTHENPARAMBIL
HOUSE PULIKALODY, VADAPURAM P.O. MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676 542.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER (SR.)
SMT.T.K.SREEKALA
SMT.S.PARVATHI
SMT.KALLIYANI KRISHNA B.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.09.2026,
THE COURT ON 10.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.6230/2024 : :
2 CNR : KLHC010831772024
2026:KER:68852
‘CR’
K. NATARAJAN & JOHNSON JOHN, JJ.
---------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.6230 of 2024
---------------------------------------------------------
th
Dated this the 10 day of August, 2026
JUDGMENT
Johnson John, J.
The order of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi
dated 06.04.2023 in O.A. No. 148 of 2020 is under challenge in this writ
petition filed by the Union of India.
rd
2. As per the impugned order, the Tribunal directed the 3 and
th
4 respondents in the OA to issue a corrigendum PPO granting disability
element of pension to the applicant at 30% which would stand
rounded off to 50% from the date of retirement and pay the arrears
at the earliest, at any rate within a period of four months from the date
of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which it was directed that
the unpaid amount would carry interest at 9% per annum. It was
also ordered that considering the delay in filing the OA, the arrears shall
be limited to a period of three years prior to the filing of the OA.
3. The respondent applicant was recruited on 31.01.1970 and
superannuated on 08.11.2005. The Release Medical Board assessed the
W.P.(C) No.6230/2024 : :
3 CNR : KLHC010831772024
2026:KER:68852
disability ‘Primary Hypertension at 30% for life’, aggravated by military
service due to stress and strain. However, the adjudicating and
appellate authorities rejected the opinion of the Release Medical Board
and denied the disability element of pension on the ground that it is
neither attributable to nor aggravated by service.
4. Heard Smt. S. Krishna, the learned Central Government
Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. S. Parvathi, the learned
counsel for the respondent.
5. The learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the
petitioners argued that the Tribunal was not justified in ignoring the
findings of the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority that the
disability is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.
But, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that in view of
Regulation 423 of the Regulation for Medical Services for Armed Forces,
1983 (‘Regulations, 1983’ for short) and as per the decisions of the
Honourable Supreme Court in Sukhvinder Singh v. Union of Indi a
[(2014) 14 SCC 364], Bijender Singh v. Union of India and Ors.
W.P.(C) No.6230/2024 : :
4 CNR : KLHC010831772024
2026:KER:68852
[2025 SCC OnLine SC 895] and Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India
[(2013) 7 SCC 316], a member is to be presumed in sound physical and
mental condition upon entering service if there is no note or record at
the time of entrance and in the event of his subsequently being
discharged from service on medical grounds, any deterioration in his
health is to be presumed due to service and that the onus of proof is not
on the employee and that it is for the employer to prove that the
disability is not attributable to or aggravated by military service.
6. It is not in dispute that the Release Medical Board assessed the
disability ‘Primary Hypertension at 30% for life’ and found that the same
is aggravated by military service due to stress and strain. The
Honourable Supreme Court, in Sukhvinder Singh (supra) , held that
any disability not recorded at the time of recruitment must be presumed
to have been caused subsequently and unless proved to the contrary to
be a consequence of military service and held thus in paragraph 11:
“11. We are of the persuasion, therefore, that firstly, any disability not
recorded at the time of recruitment must be presumed to have been caused
subsequently and unless proved to the contrary to be a consequence of
military service. The benefit of doubt is rightly extended in favour of the
W.P.(C) No.6230/2024 : :
5 CNR : KLHC010831772024
2026:KER:68852
member of the armed forces; any other conclusion would tantamount to
granting a premium to the Recruitment Medical Board for their own
negligence. Secondly, the morale of the armed forces requires absolute and
undiluted protection and if an injury leads to loss of service without any
recompense, this morale would be severely undermined. Thirdly, there appear
to be no provisions authorising the discharge or invaliding out of service
where the disability is below twenty per cent and seems to us to be logically
so. Fourthly, wherever a member of the armed forces is invalided out of
service, it perforce has to be assumed that his disability was found to be above
twenty per cent. Fifthly, as per the extant Rules/Regulations, a disability
leading to invaliding out of service would attract the grant of fifty per cent
disability pension. ”
7. The Honourable Supreme Court, in Dharamvir Singh (supra),
after referring to relevant provisions of the Regulations and the Rules,
summed up the principles in the following manner:
“ 29. A conjoint reading of various provisions, reproduced above, makes it
clear that:
29.1. Disability pension to be granted to an individual who is invalided from
service on account of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by
military service in non-battle casualty and is assessed at 20% or over. The
question whether a disability is attributable to or aggravated by military
service to be determined under the Entitlement Rules for Casualty
Pensionary Awards, 1982 of Appendix II (Regulation 173).
29.2. A member is to be presumed in sound physical and mental condition
upon entering service if there is no note or record at the time of entrance. In
the event of his subsequently being discharged from service on medical
grounds any deterioration in his health is to be presumed due to service
[Rule 5 read with Rule 14( b )].
29.3. The onus of proof is not on the claimant (employee), the corollary is
that onus of proof that the condition for non-entitlement is with the
employer. A claimant has a right to derive benefit of any reasonable doubt
and is entitled for pensionary benefit more liberally (Rule 9).
29.4. If a disease is accepted to have been as having arisen in service, it must
W.P.(C) No.6230/2024 : :
6 CNR : KLHC010831772024
2026:KER:68852
also be established that the conditions of military service determined or
contributed to the onset of the disease and that the conditions were due to
the circumstances of duty in military service [Rule 14( c )].
29.5. If no note of any disability or disease was made at the time of
individual's acceptance for military service, a disease which has led to an
individual's discharge or death will be deemed to have arisen in service [Rule
14( b )].
29.6. If medical opinion holds that the disease could not have been detected
on medical examination prior to the acceptance for service and that disease
will not be deemed to have arisen during service, the Medical Board is
required to state the reasons [Rule 14( b )]; and
29.7. It is mandatory for the Medical Board to follow the guidelines laid
down in Chapter II of the Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pensions), 2002
— “Entitlement: General Principles”, including Paras 7, 8 and 9 as referred to
above (para 27).”
8. In Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India and others [2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1064], the Honourable Supreme Court held that if the
opinion of the medical board is devoid of reasons, the act of the
authority based on mere opinion sans reasons can certainly be
questioned and that mere fact that at the time of onset of the disease,
military service was being rendered in peace locations or that the
disease is a lifestyle disorder would not by itself be a sufficient reason to
deny the attributability of the disease to military service.
9. In the present case, there is no dispute that no note of any
disease has been recorded at the time when the respondent enrolled for
military service and therefore, in the absence of any medical opinion or
records to indicate that the disease could not have been detected on
W.P.(C) No.6230/2024 : :
7 CNR : KLHC010831772024
2026:KER:68852
medical examination prior to acceptance for service, the respondent is
entitled for the benefit of the statutory presumptions, especially in view
of sub clause (c) of Regulation 423 of the Regulations, 1983.
10. As noticed earlier, in the present case, the Release Medical
Board assessed the disability ‘Primary Hypertension at 30% for life and
as aggravated by military service due to stress and strain and in the
absence of any other medical opinion, contrary to the opinion of the
Release Medical Board, the adjudicating authority and the appellate
authority are not justified in arriving at a different conclusion ignoring
the statutory presumptions in favour of the applicant and therefore, we
find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal
granting disability element of pension to the applicant.
11. It is also pertinent to note that this writ petition is filed by the
Union of India only on 14.01.2024 to challenge the order of the Armed
Forces Tribunal dated 06.04.2023. As per Section 30 of the Armed
Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the time fixed for preferring the statutory
appeal is 90 days from the date of the decision or order and therefore, in
view of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in A. V.
Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Ramchand
W.P.(C) No.6230/2024 : :
8 CNR : KLHC010831772024
2026:KER:68852
Sobhraj Wadhwani and another [AIR 1961 SC 1506 = 1961 KLT
OnLine 1276 (SC)], Rikhab Chand Jain v. Union of India [2025 (6)
KLT 562 (SC)] and Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU v. Glaxo
Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd . (2020 (3) KLT OnLine 1120
(SC) and the decisions of this Court in Lt Col K. C. Chandra Bhanu v.
Union of India [2026 KHC OnLine 572] and Assistant Commissioner
of Central Excise v. Krishna Poduval [2006 (1) S.T.R. 185 (Ker.), we
find that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is not so wide as to resurrect a cause of action
which has become unenforceable on account of law of limitation and that
this writ petition is devoid of merit and 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.6230/2024 : :
9 CNR : KLHC010831772024
2026:KER:68852
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 6230 OF 2024
PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF O.A.NO.148 OF 2020 FILED BY THE
APPLICANT DATED 30.09.2020 BEFORE THE HON’BLE
ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, KOCHI.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS
IN THAT O.A.NO.148 OF 2020.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A. 148 OF 2020 DATED
06.04.2023.
RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: NIL
/True Copy/
P. S to Judge.
Rv