UNION OF INDIA TH SECRETARY TO GOVT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND OTHERS vs EX NK ROSHAN LAL

33IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND
LADAKH
AT JAMMU

Case No. WP(C) No. 919/2026

Reserved on : 15.04.2026
Pronounced on : 30.05.2026
Uploaded on : 30.05.2026
Whether the operative part or full judgment
is pronounced


1. Union of India Th. Secretary to Government of India,
Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi- 11O011.
2. The Chief of Army staff Th. AGs Branch, IHQ of MoD
(Army), Additional Directorate General Services,
DHQ Po New Delhi-110011
3. The Chief Controller of Defence, Accounts (Pension),
Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh (UP).
4. The Officer-In-Charge, Records, Artillery Records,
Pin 908802 C/O 56 APO.




…Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)

Through:- Mr. Rohan Nanda, CGSC

V/s


Ex NK Roshan Lal S/O Sh. Munshi Ram,
R/o Village & P.O. Kalsian, Tehsil Naushera District Rajouri (J&K)


….Respondent(s)

Through:- Mr. B. S. Sarmal, Advocate
Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate


CORAM:
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
Per: Sindhu Sharma-J
1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition
challenging the order dated 29.05.2023 passed by the
Armed Forces Tribunal, Srinagar Bench at Jammu
WP(C) No. 919 of 2026 Page 1 of 8

((hereinafter, “AFT”) in OA No. 256/2022 titled Ex NK
Roshan Lal vs. Union of India & Others . By the said order,
the AFT directed the petitioners to grant disability element to
the respondent at 20% from 01.01.1994 to 31.12.1995 and
thereafter rounding off to 50% from 01.01.1996 for life.
However, arrears were restricted to three years prior to the
filing of the Original Application i.e., 27.10.2022.
2. The respondent was enrolled in the Indian Army on
23.07.1977. During service, he developed an eye disease,
namely Hypermetropic Amblyopia (Right Eye) , which was
detected in 1991 while he was posted at Namkum. He was
placed in low medical category „CEE‟ (Temporary) with effect
from 11.12.1991, and later downgraded to permanent low
medical category „CEE‟. The initial medical board recorded
that the disability was contracted during service and not
within the control of the respondent. Owing to his
permanent low medical category, the respondent was
discharged from service on 31.12.1993 under Rule
13(3)(iii)(v) of the Army Rules, 1954. He was granted service
pension with effect from 01.01.1994. However, the Release
Medical Board assessed his disability at 15–19% for two
years and opined that it was neither attributable to nor
aggravated by military service (NANA). Consequently, his
claim for disability pension was rejected by PCDA (P),
WP(C) No. 919 of 2026 Page 2 of 8

Allahabad on 13.12.1994, and his first appeal was also
rejected on 01.11.1996.
3. Subsequently, after obtaining relevant documents
through RTI, the respondent submitted a demand notice,
which was rejected on 28.12.2018. He then filed OA No.
124/2019 before the Tribunal, which was disposed of on
27.03.2019 with directions to conduct a Review Medical
Board (RSMB).
4. In compliance, the RSMB conducted on 22.02.2020
assessed the respondent‟s disability at 20% for life. His case
was forwarded to PCDA (P), Allahabad; however, the claim
was returned and later rejected on 29.09.2021 on the
ground that the disability was not attributable to or
aggravated by military service .
5. Aggrieved thereof, the respondent approached the AFT
by filing OA No. 256/2022, which came to be allowed vide
the impugned order dated 29.05.2023.
6. The stand taken by the petitioners before the AFF was
that the Artillery Records vide letter dated 26.12.2022 has
submitted the case of the respondent to PCDA )P), Prayagraj
in terms of DGAFMS policy Ietter No.16036
/RAMB/DGAFMS/MA (Pens) dated14.05.2020, wherein it
was clarified that intervening period will be from the next
day of the date of expiry of existing award of disability
assessment percentage made by the last medical board till
WP(C) No. 919 of 2026 Page 3 of 8

one day prior to date of current medical board i.e. as per
AFMSF-17 dated 20.02.2020 intervening period to be
covered under previous medical board, as such, the
respondent is not entitled to disability element of disability
pension.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record.
8. The Tribunal after considering the pleadings framed
following two questions while deciding the OA:-
“(a) whether the Principal Controller of Defence
Accounts (Pensions), Allahabad has authority to
overrule the opinion of RSMB with regard to the
disability?

(b) Whether the applicant is entitled for the
benefit of rounding off the disability element of
disability pension?

9. Both these questions were decided in favour of the
respondent.
10. The AFT considered the rival contentions in the light of
law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Ex
.Sapper Mohinder Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors,
Civil Appeal No. 164 of 1993 decided on 14.01.1993 and held
that the decision of the competent authority i.e., Principal
Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions) Allahabad over
ruing the opinion of RSMB held on 22.02.2020 is void in
law.
11. While considering the issue regarding rounding off
disability pension, the Tribunal relied on the judgment in
case titled Union of India and Ram Avtar & Ors . (2014
WP(C) No. 919 of 2026 Page 4 of 8

SCC Online SC 1761. We are in agreement with the view
taken by the Tribunal. It is well settled that even those
individuals who retired from service or re-employed, are
entitled to disability pension. In this Judgment, the Hon'ble
Apex Court nodded in disapproval of the policy of the
Government of India in granting the benefit of rounding off
of disability pension only to the personnel who have been
invalided out of service and denying the same to the
Personnel who have retired on attaining the age of
superannuation or on completion of their tenure of
engagement. The relevant portion of the decision is
excerpted below:-
“4. By the present set of appeals, the appellant
(s) raise the question, whether or not, an
individual, who has retired on attaining the age
of Superannuation or on completion of his
tenure of engagement, if found to be suffering
from some disability which is attributable to or
aggravated by the military service, is entitled to
be granted the benefit of rounding off of
disability pension. The appellant(s) herein would
contend that, on the basis of Circular No
1(2)/97/D (Pen-C) issued by the Ministry of
Defence, Government of India, dated 31.01.2001,
the aforesaid benefit is made available only to an
Armed Forces Personnel who is invalidated out of
service, and not to any other category of Armed
Forces Personnel mentioned hereinabove.

5. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties
to the lis.

6. We do not see any error in the impugned
judgment (s) and order(s) and therefore, all the
appeals which pertain to the concept of rounding
off of the disability pension are dismissed, with
no order as to costs.

7 The dismissal of these matters will be taken
note of by the High Courts as well as by the
Tribunals in granting appropriate relief to the
pensioners before them, if any, who are getting
or are entitled to the disability pension.
WP(C) No. 919 of 2026 Page 5 of 8

8. This Court grants six weeks’ time from today
to the appellant(s) to comply with the orders and
directions passed by us.”

12. Further AFT while relying upon the judgment of
Hon‟ble Supreme Court rendered in case titled Dharamvir
Singh vs. Union of India , (2013) 7 SCC316 held that the
RSMB has assessed the disability of the applicant @ 2O% for
life, but denied attributability to the respondent only by
endorsing that the intervening period covered under
previous medical board. However, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the AFT was of the opinion that
this reasoning of RSMB for denying disability element of
disability pension for the disability to respondent is cryptic,
not convincing and doesn't reflect the complete truth on the
matter, as the respondent was enrolled in lndian Army on
23.07.1977 and the disability has started after more than 14
years of Army service i.e., in the year 1991.
13. In Dharamvir Singh‟s case (supra) the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court has emphasized that if no disability or disease is
recorded at the time of enrolment and if the medical
authorities cannot provide reasons for disability to detect the
disease at that time, it would be presumed to be attributed
to or has arisen during the service. The burden of proof lies
with the employee to establish non-entitlement of the person
for disability pension.
WP(C) No. 919 of 2026 Page 6 of 8

14. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case titled Sukhvinder
Singh v. Union of India (2014) 14 SCC 364 has been held
that whenever a member of armed force is invalided out of
service, it perforce has to be assumed that his disability was
found to be above 20%. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court further
ob served as under:-
“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 member of the Armed Forces; any other
conclusion would be 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 appears 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.”

15. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the
respondent developed the disability during service after more
than 14 years of enrolment. On the contrary, the initial
medical board had recorded that the disability was
contracted during service and was not within the control of
the respondent. The subsequent denial of attributability
lacks adequate reasoning and does not inspire confidence.
WP(C) No. 919 of 2026 Page 7 of 8

16. In view of the settled legal position and the facts of the
present case, we find no infirmity in the findings recorded by
the AFT with regard to attributability of the disability.
17. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is
hereby dismissed. The impugned order dated 29.05.2023
passed by the AFT is upheld.



(Shahzad Azeem) (Sindhu Sharma)
Judge Judge


Jammu:
30.05.2026
Bir *


WP(C) No. 919 of 2026 Page 8 of 8