Absence of reasoned medical opinion on attributability entitles personnel to the benefit of doubt for disability pension.

The respondent was enrolled in the Regiment of Artillery on 15.12.1971 and discharged on 01.06.1987 in medical category “CEE (Permanent)” due to "Mitral Valve Prolapse V-67" after serving over 15 years.

The Release Medical Board (RMB) assessed his disability at 20% but opined it was "constitutional" and neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.

His initial claims and a 2017 application for disability pension were rejected by the authorities.

The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Kochi, subsequently allowed the disability element of pension, leading the Union of India to challenge the order via this writ petition.

1. Whether the findings of a Medical Board regarding the non-attributability of a disease can be sustained if the Board fails to provide specific reasons for its conclusion.

2. Whether a disease discovered during service, which was not noted at the time of enrolment, is presumed to be attributable to or aggravated by military service.

The court applied Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, which mandates that disability must be attributable to or aggravated by service and assessed at 20% or above for pension eligibility.

Under Regulation 423 of the Regulations for Medical Services for Armed Forces, 1983, a disease is deemed to have arisen in service if no note of it was made at enrolment, unless medical experts provide specific reasons why it could not have been detected.

The court relied on *Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India* (2013), establishing the presumption of sound health at entry.

The court relied on *Rajumon T. M v. Union of India* (2025), which held that the requirement for a Medical Board to give reasons is "crucial, critical, and decisive" and not a mere formality.

The High Court observed that the respondent was fit at the time of enrolment and served for 15 years before being discharged on medical grounds.

Upon reviewing the Confidential Medical Board proceedings (Part III), the Court found that while the Board concluded the disease was "constitutional," it left the section requiring "full reasons" blank or answered with a mere conclusion.

The Court reasoned that there is a legal distinction between a "conclusion" and the "reasons" supporting it; without the latter, the Medical Board violates Regulation 423(d).

Following the precedent in *Rajumon T. M.*, the Court held that the absence of reasoning strikes at the root of the denial of pension.

Furthermore, per *Union of India v. Parashotam Dass* (2025), the Court affirmed its jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere when there is an error apparent on the face of the record, such as a non-speaking expert opinion that determines a serviceman's fundamental rights.

It held that since the Medical Board failed to assign any reasons to displace the legal presumption that the disease arose during service, the denial of pension was unsustainable in law.

The Court found no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision.