J&K High Court | PCDA(P) Cannot Overrule Medical Board’s Disability Assessment | Disability Pension with Rounding-Off Upheld for Ex-Naik
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar held that the writ petition filed was devoid of merit and dismissed the same. The Court directed that the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench Srinagar at Jammu, which had allowed the claim of the respondent for disability pension, was legally sustainable and did not warrant interference. The Bench upheld the Tribunal’s conclusion that the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad, could not alter or disregard the findings of the duly constituted Medical Board, and confirmed that the respondent was entitled to disability pension as assessed by the Re-Survey Medical Board. The Court concluded that the judgment of the Tribunal was perfectly legal and within jurisdiction, thereby dismissing the challenge brought through the writ petition.
The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Union of India through the Ministry of Defence, the Chief of the Army Staff, the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad, and the Record Officer of Jammu & Kashmir Light Infantry, Srinagar. The challenge was directed against the judgment and order dated 23rd December 2021 of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench Srinagar at Jammu, in OA No. 215 of 2019.
The Tribunal had allowed the application filed by the respondent, who had approached it seeking disability pension. The Tribunal quashed the orders dated 24.09.1999 and 16.12.2002, which had denied him disability pension benefits. The Tribunal held that the respondent was entitled to disability pension with effect from 25th June 2014 but restricted the arrears to three years prior to the filing of the application, i.e., 18.04.2019.
The petitioners assailed the Tribunal’s order on the grounds that the disability of the respondent was not attributable but only aggravated by military service, and it was assessed at less than 20% in the subsequent Re-Survey Medical Board. It was submitted that the Tribunal ignored the expert opinion of the Medical Board, which was not amenable to judicial review unless strong contrary medical evidence existed. It was further contended that the respondent had filed the original application after an inordinate delay of seventeen years from the cause of action, and therefore the claim was hit by delay and laches.
The respondent’s counsel defended the Tribunal’s order, submitting that all aspects, including the issue of delay, had been considered. The Tribunal, while recognizing the delay, had limited the arrears to a period of three years before the filing of the application.
The Court noted the factual background that the respondent had joined the Indian Army on 18th February 1976 in a fit medical condition. During service, he developed Lumbar Spondylosis with backache and was discharged on 29th February 1992 upon completion of tenure. At discharge, his disability was assessed at 6-10% for ten years and considered aggravated by service. The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad, however, accepted his disability at 20% for five years, and he was granted disability element of pension accordingly.
The respondent was examined by the Re-Survey Medical Board on 26.09.1996, which assessed his disability at 20% for ten years. However, PCDA (P), Allahabad reduced this assessment to 11-14% for five years without reasons or obtaining expert opinion. On 04.06.2002, another Re-Survey Medical Board assessed his disability at 11-14% for life, based on which disability pension was discontinued after 26.12.1996. The respondent challenged this through OA No. 215 of 2019 before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal found that the PCDA (P) had no authority to override the assessment of the Medical Board. It held the respondent entitled to disability pension as per the 20% disability assessed by the Re-Survey Medical Board held on 06.09.1996. The Tribunal also restricted arrears to three years prior to the date of filing of the application to balance the issue of delay.
The Court observed: “We are of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by the Tribunal is perfectly legal and does not call for any interference by us in the exercise of our extraordinary writ jurisdiction.”
The Court recorded that the respondent was initially discharged with disability assessed at 6-10% and considered aggravated by service. PCDA (P), however, accepted 20% disability for five years, benefitting the respondent. When the Re-Survey Medical Board assessed his disability at 20% for ten years in 1996, the PCDA (P) reduced it arbitrarily. The Court noted: “This was done by the PCDA(P), Allahabad without indicating any reason and without obtaining any expert opinion in the matter.”
The Court further observed: “It is trite law that the opinion of the duly constituted Medical Board containing panel of expert doctors should ordinarily be given primacy and credence.” Referring to precedent, it quoted from Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. A.V. Damodaran (2009) 9 SCC 140: “The opinion given by the doctors or the medical board shall be given weightage and primacy in the matter for ascertainment as to whether or not the injuries/illness sustained was due to or was aggravated by the military service which contributed to invalidation from the military service.”
The Bench also relied upon Ex Sapper Mohinder Singh v. Union of India (Civil Appeal No.164 of 1993), wherein the Supreme Court held: “We are unable to see as to how the accounts branch dealing with the pension can sit over the judgment of the experts in the medical line and comment upon the extent of disability without making any reference to a detailed or higher medical board.”
The Court stated: “It is, thus, no longer res integra that the administrative decision taken by the PCDA(P), Allahabad denying the disability element of pension to the respondent runs counter to the legal position enunciated by various High Court and the Supreme Court in Ex-Sapper Mohinder Singh.”
On the issue of rounding off disability pension, the Court noted that the plea that it should not apply to those retiring on superannuation was untenable. It cited Union of India v. Ram Avtar (Civil Appeal No.418/2012), observing: “The rounding off is applicable even to the cases where the army personnel retires on normal superannuation with a disability incurred by him during the course of his service provided such disability is either attributable or aggravated by military service.”
The Court concluded by affirming the decision of the Tribunal, recording: “For all these reasons, we find no illegality or infirmity in the judgment passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition is, therefore, found devoid of any merit, the same is, accordingly, dismissed.”
The Bench upheld the entitlement of the respondent to disability pension as assessed by the Re-Survey Medical Board held on 06.09.1996. It agreed that arrears would be limited to three years prior to filing the application before the Tribunal. The Court also recorded that the petitioners were at liberty to bring the respondent before the Re-Survey Medical Board for reassessment post 06.09.2006.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ranjit Singh Jamwal, CSGC
For the Respondent: Mr. Chakshu Sharma, Advocate
Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Ex Naik (TS) Shukar Singh
Case Number: WP(C) No.1633/2024
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Kumar; Justice Sanjay Parihar
