Medical Board's Failure To Reason Its Opinion Cannot Sustain Denial Of Disability Pension To Armed Forces Personnel: Kerala High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John dismissed a writ petition filed by the Union of India challenging an Armed Forces Tribunal order that granted disability pension to a former artillery soldier. The soldier, enrolled in 1971 and discharged in 1987 following a diagnosis of Mitral Valve Prolapse, had been denied disability pension on the basis of a Medical Board opinion that merely described the condition as "constitutional" without providing any reasoning, leading the court to hold that such an unsupported opinion could not lawfully sustain the denial.
The respondent was enrolled in the Regiment of Artillery on 15 December 1971 and was discharged from service on 1 June 1987, having completed approximately 15 years of service. He was released before completing his full tenure after being placed in medical category CEE (permanent). His repeated requests for disability pension were declined, and a fresh application filed in May 2017 was similarly rejected on the ground that his disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.
The Union of India contended that the Release Medical Board's opinion clearly established the absence of any causal connection between the diagnosed condition — Mitral Valve Prolapse — and military service, and that such expert medical opinion warranted deference.
The respondent argued that the Medical Board had recorded no reasons for classifying the disease as constitutional, despite being physically fit at enrollment and despite the regulations explicitly requiring reasoned findings. The provisions invoked included Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, Appendix II thereto, and Regulation 423 of the Regulations for Medical Services for Armed Forces, 1983.
The Court examined the regulatory framework governing disability pension and recorded that “Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 deals with the primary conditions for the grant of disability pension.” The Court noted the requirement that disability pension may be granted when a person is invalided from service on account of a disability attributable to or aggravated by military service and assessed at the prescribed percentage.
The Union of India, relying on Union of India v. Keshar Singh and connected precedents, contended that the opinion of the Medical Board on whether a disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service must be respected, and that "the opinion expressed by medical experts could not be lightly brushed aside."
The court drew on Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India, which stated that a member of the Armed Forces is presumed to be in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service if no adverse note exists in the records, and that where discharge subsequently occurs on medical grounds, "the onus of proof that the deterioration in his health was not due to service conditions lie on the employer."
The court also noted the position in Union of India v. Rajbir Singh, which stated that "provision for payment for disability pension is a beneficial provision which ought to be interpreted liberally so as to benefit those who have been sent home with disability at times even before they completed their tenure in the Armed Forces."
Reliance was placed on Rajumon T. M. v. Union of India, which stated that "the requirement to give reasons by the Medical Board is crucial, critical, decisive and necessary for the purpose of granting or denying disability pension and it is not a mere formality, but a necessary material on the basis of which the pension sanctioning authority has to decide about the grant or refusal of disability pension."
The court noted that Regulation 423(d) explicitly requires the Medical Board to specify reasons for its opinion and observed that while the Board had marked the disease as constitutional, it had provided no explanation. The court recorded that "the aforesaid entries in part III of the form reveals that no reasons have been assigned in support of the conclusion that the disease is constitutional, in spite of the fact that it has been specifically mentioned therein that the medical board should state fully the reasons in regard to each disability on which its opinion is based."
The court stated that "when the serviceman is discharged from service and denied the disability element of pension on the basis of a medical opinion which is devoid of reasons, it would strike at the root of the action taken by the authority and such action cannot be sustained in law."
It further observed that "in the present case, as noticed from part III of the form, it is clear that the medical board has not given any reasons for arriving at the conclusion that the disease 'Mitral valve Prolapse V-67' is constitutional. The said opinion or conclusion is without assigning any reasons as to how the medical board has come to the conclusion that the disease is constitutional."
The court drew a distinction between a conclusion and the reasoning supporting it, stating that "it is well settled that there is a difference between the conclusion or opinion and reasons to support such a conclusion or opinion and in the absence of any reasons in support of such a conclusion or opinion, the same cannot be treated as reasons for denial of the disability element of pension to the respondent."
Finding no jurisdictional error or error apparent on the face of the record in the Tribunal's order, the court recorded that "the medical board has not stated any reasons for their opinion that the disease is constitutional and we find no jurisdictional error or error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by this Court and therefore, we find that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed."
"In the result, this writ petition is dismissed."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Smt. Gayathri Krishnan, Central Government Counsel
For the Respondents: Sri T.R. Jagadeesh, Sri Adi Narayanan, Sri Jose Job
Case Title: Union of India & Anr. v. Mohanan Madathil Koliyat
Neutral Citation: 2026: KER:17168
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 37473 of 2025
Bench: Justice K. Natarajan, Justice Johnson John
