PCDA cannot overrule Review Medical Board findings on disability attributability to deny pensionary benefits.

The respondent was enrolled in the Indian Army on July 23, 1977.

In 1991, after 14 years of service, he developed an eye disease (Hypermetropic Amblyopia) and was eventually downgraded to permanent low medical category ‘CEE’.

He was discharged on December 31, 1993, under Rule 13(3)(iii)(v) of the Army Rules, 1954.

While he received service pension, his claim for disability pension was rejected because the Release Medical Board (RMB) assessed his disability at 15–19% and classified it as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service (NANA).

Following a 2019 Tribunal direction, a Review Medical Board (RSMB) in 2020 reassessed the disability at 20% for life.

However, the PCDA (P) Allahabad rejected the claim, overruling the RSMB's findings.

The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) subsequently ruled in favor of the respondent, leading the Union of India to challenge that order via this writ petition.

1. Whether the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions), Allahabad has the authority to overrule the opinion of the Review Medical Board (RSMB) regarding disability.

2. Whether the respondent is entitled to the benefit of "rounding off" of the disability element of the pension.

3. Whether a disability not recorded at the time of enrollment is presumed to be attributable to military service.

The court relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Ex Sapper Mohinder Singh v. Union of India, which establishes that pension authorities cannot overrule the findings of medical boards.

Regarding "rounding off," the court applied Union of India v. Ram Avtar, holding that disability benefit increments apply to both "invalided out" personnel and those retiring on superannuation.

For attributability, the court applied Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and Sukhvinder Singh v. Union of India, which dictate that any disability not recorded at recruitment is presumed to have been caused or aggravated by military service, placing the burden of proof on the employer to prove otherwise.

The High Court observed that the initial medical board had recorded that the respondent's disability was contracted during service and was outside his control.

Since the disease emerged in 1991, fourteen years after enrollment, and was not noted at the time of entry, the court applied the presumption of attributability under the Dharamvir Singh doctrine.

The court found the RSMB’s 2020 denial of attributability to be "cryptic" and "not convincing".

Furthermore, following Mohinder Singh, the court determined that the PCDA (P) acted without authority in overruling the medical board's 20% assessment.

Finally, the court confirmed that the respondent, despite retiring rather than being invalided out, was entitled to have his 20% disability rounded off to 50% for life based on the parity established in Ram Avtar.

The court held that the respondent is entitled to a disability element of 20% from 1994 to 1995, rounded off to 50% from 1996 for life, with arrears restricted to three years prior to the filing of the Original Application.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the AFT’s order.