2026:MHC:923W.P.No.16444 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 16.12.2025

DELIVERED ON : 05.03.2026

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,

CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

WP No.16444 of 2025

NTR 16636-L Col Yesudian Sugumar P (Retd)

Son of Pichmoni, R/O 19/38 West Street,

Pattakarai Post, Thiruchendur Taluk,

Thoothukudi District - 628 618.

Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. Ministry of Defence

Room No.234 - South Block,

New Delhi.

2. Union of India

Rep by Secretary,

DESW, Govt of India,

Ministry of Defence,

South Block, New Delhi - 110 011.

3. The Chief of The Army Staff

Integrated HQ of MoD (Army)

South Block,

New Delhi - 110 011.

______________

Page 1 of 26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.16444 of 2025

4. Additional Dte Gen MPRS(O)

Adjutant General's Branch

IHQ of MoD (Army), 3rd Floor, A-block,

Room No.334 and 335

Defence Office Complex, KG Marg,

New Delhi - 110 001.

5. PCDA (Pensions)

Draupadi Ghat,

Allahabad, UP - 211 014.

6. Armed Forces Tribunal

Regional Bench, Chennai.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the

impugned order passed by the 6th respondent dated 24.10.2024

vide OA No.165 of 2022 with MA 248 of 2022 and quash the same

and consequently direct the respondents to grant Disability pension

with effect from 1st June 2021 at 30 percent for life which shall be

broad-banded or rounded off to 50 percent as per existing orders.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Ram Pranav

for Mr.S.Veeraraghavan

For Respondent(s): Mr.V.Chandrasekaran

Senior Panel Counsel

for R1 to R5

______________

Page 2 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.16444 of 2025

ORDER

G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.

Embittered by an order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the Armed

Forces Tribunal rejecting the claim of the petitioner seeking disability

pension, the present writ petition is filed.

2.1. The nub of the matter runs thus: The petitioner retired

from the Indian Army on 31.5.2021 after rendering service of 34

years, 5 months and 4 days. Prior to his superannuation, on

28.5.2021, the Release Medical Board assessed the disability of the

applicant due to Hypertension at 30% for life, but opined that the

disability is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.

The decision of the Release Medical Board denying disability pension

was communicated on 20.9.2021.

2.2. Questioning the said order, the petitioner preferred a First

Appeal before the Appellate Committee on First Appeals claiming that

the petitioner is suffering hypertension owing to adverse service

conditions with stressful job nature and, therefore, he is entitled to

claim disability pension. The First Appeal was rejected on 10.2.2022

______________

Page 3 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.16444 of 2025

holding that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated

by military service.

2.3. The Second Appeal preferred by the petitioner as against

the aforesaid order was rejected by order dated 19.7.2022, affirming

the order passed in the first appeal.

2.4. Assailing the order dated 19.7.2022, the petitioner

approached the Armed Forces Tribunal, which, by order dated

24.10.2024, upheld the orders passed by the authorities below.

Hence, the present writ petition.

3.1. Mr.Ram Pranav, learned counsel for the petitioner,

vehemently contended that the petitioner had served over 34 years in

the Indian Army and was consistently assigned to high pressure and

demanding appointments throughout his service and the Release

Medical Board, in its report, has expressly acknowledged the adverse

impact of stress and strain on the petitioner’s medical condition and

the observations of the Officiating Deputy Commandant and the Chief

Instructor, as referred to in the report of the Release Medical Board,

______________

Page 4 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.16444 of 2025

unequivocally affirm that the petitioner’s duties entailed severe and

exceptional stress and strain, but the said observations were not given

due credence while rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

3.2. It is further submitted that the twin conditions delineated in

Rule 10(b) of the Entitlement Rules for casualty Pensionary Awards to

Armed Forces Personnel, 2008 that the disease had arisen during the

period of military service; and that the disease had been caused by

the condition of his employment are satisfied and, therefore, denial

of disability pension to the petitioner is unjust and unreasonable

and is far removed from the settled proposition of law propounded

by the Supreme Court to the effect that disabilities arising during

service are to be presumed as attributable to or aggravated by

military service unless proved otherwise. To buttress the said

submission, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court

in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India

1

.

3.3. Referring to Regulation 423(a) of the Regulations for the

Medical Services of Armed Forces, 2010, learned counsel for the

1

(2013) 7 SCC 316

______________

Page 5 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.16444 of 2025

petitioner submits that for the purpose of determining whether the

cause of a disability is or is not attributable to service, it is immaterial

whether the cause giving rise to the disability occurred in an area

declared to be field Service/Active Service area or under normal peace

condition and, therefore, the petitioner, who was commanding a

Battalion of recruit training at Lucknow during Covid 19, is eligible for

disability pension.

3.4. To fortify his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner

relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and

others v. Angad Singh Titaria

2

and a decision of the Armed Forces

Tribunal, Lukcnow in Naba Kumar Chandra v. Union of India

3

.

4.1. Refuting the aforesaid submissions, Mr.V.Chandrasekaran,

learned Senior Panel Counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1

to 5, submitted that, in the case on hand, the petitioner was diagnosed

with “Primary Hypertension” while he was serving at peace station and

the grant of disability pension should be based on strict interpretation

of attributability/aggravation of the disease while serving the nation in

2

(2015) 12 SCC 257

3

Order dated 4.10.2021 in O.A.No.237 of 2021

______________

Page 6 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.16444 of 2025

extreme conditions and/or field operation, etc.

4.2. Distinguishing the decision of the Supreme Court in

Dharamvir Singh (supra), it is contented that the said decision pertains

to the claim of disability pension of a Soldier, who was diagnosed with

“Epilepsy” and invalidated in the year 1994. The said decision referred

to the Entitlement Rules in force during 1994. However, after 2008,

the Entitlement Rules have been amended and as per the new Rules

applicable, the disability shall be conceded aggravated by service, only

if the disease is worsened by specific condition of military service such

as posted in place of extreme climatic conditions, etc. In the case on

hand, the petitioner was served at a peace station and, therefore, the

aggravation cannot be ascribed to military service.

4.3. To bolster his arguments in support of the order passed by

the Tribunal, learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme

Court in the case of Narsingh Yadav v. Union of India

4

, wherein, while

considering the case of a person who was discharged from service as

he was suffering from “schizophrenia”, after referring to the decision in

Dharamvir Singh (supra), the claim was rejected holding that the

4

(2019) 9 SCC 667

______________

Page 7 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.16444 of 2025

disease of schizophrenia could not have been detected at the time of

enrollment.

4.4. The Release Medical Board, after considering the disability,

opined that it is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military

service. In view of the Release Medical Board opinion, the claim for

disability pension was rejected. Further appeals also came to be

rejected. The Tribunal, by considering the amended new Rules, had

rightly rejected the claim. He further submitted that similar claims had

been dismissed by this Court, which has also been confirmed by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court.

5. Considered the rival submissions and perused the materials

available on record.

6. The petitioner who got enrolled in the Indian Army on

29.12.1986, after serving more than 34 years, got superannuated

from service on 31.05.2021 in low medical category. He is in receipt of

his regular service pension. Prior to his superannuation, the Release

Medical Board assessed the disability of the petitioner due to Primary

______________

Page 8 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.16444 of 2025

Hypertension at 30% for life but opined that the disability was neither

attributable to nor aggravated by military service.

7. The personal statement in Part-II of the Release Medical

Board gives the service details of the petitioner, which read as

follows:-

PART II

PERSONAL STATEMENT

1. Give details of service (P=Peace OR F=Field/Operational/ Sea service) *

(Copy of paramount card and part-ll orders for service in Fd/Mod Fd/CI Ops/HAA/sea

service/operational area/Others for the indl undergoing RMB to be att)

S.No From To Unit P/F

(HAA/

Ops/Sea

service/

Mod Fd)

S.NoFrom To Unit P/F

(HAA/

Ops/Sea

service/

Mod Fd)

(i)20/01/199307/07/1994No 2 MT

Bn, AMC

C&C, Lko

Peace (ii)08/07/1

994

27/08/1997MH

Nasirabad

Peace

(iii)28/08/199712/08/19992121 Fd

Hosp

HAA (iv)13/08/1

999

19/06/2003MH

Secunderab

ad

Peace

(v)20/06/200312/10/2004MH

Chennai

Peace (vi)13/10/2

004

04/11/2006184 MH Mod

Field

(vii)05/11/200612/10/2008MH

Khadakw

asala

Peace(viii)13/10/2

008

02/04/2011431 Fd Hosp Peace

(ix)03/04/201130/05/2013MH

Jalandha

r

Peace (x)31/05/2

013

29/09/2014AMC C&C,

Lko

Peace

(xi)30/09/201428/02/2015BH DelhiPeace(xii)01/03/2

015

25/04/2016DGMS

(Army)/MPR

S (O), Delhi

Peace

(xiii)26/04/201611/03/2020AFMC

Pune

Peace(xiv)20/03/2

020

Till Date No 1 Mil Trg

Bn, AMC

C&C, Lko

Peace

______________

Page 9 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.16444 of 2025

8. The Release Medical Board has given the opinion in Part-VII,

which is as under:-

PART VII

OPINION OF THE MEDICAL BOARD

DisabilityAttributable to

service (Y/N)

Aggravated by

service (Y/N)

DETAILED JUSTIFICATION

PRIMARY

HYPERTENSION

(1-10)

No No The disability was first detected on

12/05/2021 in peace area with no

relevant history of stress and strain.

Hence the disability consider neither

attributable to military service nor

aggravated by military service. Ref para

43 chapter vi of GMO 2008 (MP)

9. In view of the opinion of the Release Medical Board stating

that the disability is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military

service, the claim of the petitioner seeking disability pension was

rejected. Further, the subsequent first and second appeals were also

rejected on 10.02.2022 and 19.07.2022 respectively and also

thereafter confirmed by the Tribunal, which is assailed herein.

10. Now, the grant of disability element pension is covered

under the New Pension Regulations for the Army 1961 (Part-I) . It is

useful to refer to Regulations 37 and 53 of the New Regulations, which

______________

Page 10 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.16444 of 2025

read as under:-

“DISABILITY ELEMENT IN ADDITION TO RETIRING PENSION TO

OFFICER RETIRED ON ATTAINING THE PRESCRIBED AGE OF

RETIREMENT

37 (a) An Officer who retires on attaining the prescribed age of

retirement or on completion of tenure, if found suffering on retirement,

from a disability which is either attributable to or aggravated by

military service and so recorded by Release Medical Board, may be

granted in addition to the retiring pension admissible, a disability

element from the date of retirement if the degree of disability is

accepted at 20% or more.

(b) The disability element for 100% disability shall be at the

rate laid down in Regulation 94 (b) below. For disabilities less than

100% but not less than 20%, the above rates shall be proportionately

reduced. Provisions contained in Regulation 94(c) shall not be

applicable for computing disability element.”

“DISABILITY ELEMENT FOR DISABILITY AT THE TIME OF

DISCHARGE / RETIREMENT

53 (a) An individual released/retired/discharged on completion

of term of engagement or on completion of service limits or on

attaining the prescribed age (irrespective of his period of

engagement), if found suffering from a disability attributable to or

aggravated by military service and so recorded by Release Medical

Board, may be granted disability element in addition to service pension

or service gratuity from the date of retirement/discharge, if the

accepted degree of disability is assessed at 20 percent or more.

(b) The disability element for 100% disability shall be at the

rate laid down in Regulation 98(b) below. For disabilities less than

100% but not less than 20%, the above rates shall be proportionately

______________

Page 11 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.16444 of 2025

reduced. Provisions contained in Regulation 98(c) shall not be

applicable for computing disability element.”

11. The Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to

Armed Forces Personnel, 2008, deals with medical test at entry into

service, onus of proof and attributability. It is useful to refer to Rules

5, 7 and 10, for easy reference:-

“5. Medical Test at entry stage:

The medical test at the time of entry is not exhaustive, but its

scope is limited to broad physical examination. Therefore, it may not

detect some dormant disease. Besides, certain hereditary

constitutional and congenital diseases may manifest later in life,

irrespective of service conditions. The mere fact that a disease has

manifested during military service does not per se establish

attributability to or aggravation by military service.”

“7. Onus of proof:

Ordinarily the claimant will not be called upon to prove the

condition of entitlement. However, where the claim is preferred after

15 years of discharge/ retirement/ invalidment/ release by which time

the service documents of the claimant are destroyed after the

prescribed retention period, the onus to prove the entitlement would

lie on the claimant.”

“10. Attributability:

(a) Injuries:

In respect of accidents or injuries, the following rules shall be

______________

Page 12 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.16444 of 2025

observed:

(i) Injuries sustained when the individual is 'on duty', as defined,

shall be treated as attributable to military service, (provided a

nexus between injury and military service is established).

(ii) In cases of self-inflicted injuries while 'on duty', attributability

shall not be conceded unless it is established that service factors

were responsible for such action.

(b) Diseases:

(i) For acceptance of a disease as attributable to military service, the

following two conditions must be satisfied simultaneously:-

(a) that the disease has arisen during the period of military

service, and

(b) that the disease has been caused by the conditions of

employment in military service.

(ii) Diseases due to infection arising in service other than that

transmitted through sexual contact shall merit an entitlement of

attributability and where the disease may have been contracted prior

to enrolment or during leave the incubation period of the disease will

be taken into consideration on the basis of clinical course as

determined by the competent medical authority.

(iii) If nothing at all is known about the cause of disease and the

presumption of the entitlement in favour of the claimant is not

rebutted, attributability 'should be conceded on the basis of the clinical

picture and current scientific medical application.

(iv) When the diagnosis and/or treatment of a disease was faulty,

unsatisfactory or delayed due to exigencies of service, disability

______________

Page 13 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.16444 of 2025

caused due to any adverse effects arising as a complication shall be

conceded as attributable.”

12. In view of 10(b) of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty

Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 2008, the disease shall

be accepted as attributable to military service only if the disease has

arisen during the period of military service and has been caused by the

conditions of employment in military service for the grant of disability

pension. Further as per the new regulations, the grant of disability

pension shall be based on the opinion recorded by the Release Medical

Board during release/retirement about the disability suffered or

aggravated due to military service and assessed at more the 20%.

13. The Release Medical Board has listed out the details of

service rendered by the petitioner, which shows that except for 2

years, the petitioner had served throughout in peace areas. Further,

the ailment was diagnosed only on 12.05.2021, when the petitioner

was serving in the peace area.

14. The bone of contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner is by placing reliance on the decision in Dharamvir Singh’s

______________

Page 14 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.16444 of 2025

case regarding presumption and by an endorsement made by the

commanding officer that the petitioner’s service during Covid-19

involved stress.

15. The decision in Dharamvir Singh’s case was rendered prior

to the new Regulations coming into force and the provisions under the

Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces

Personnel, 2008. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ex CFN

Narsingh Yadav vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2019) 9

SCC 667, held that each claim regarding disability pension has to be

examined in respect of the duties assigned to that individual that may

have led to stress and strain. Unless there is strong medical evidence

on record to dispute the opinion of the Medical Board, the same cannot

be ignored, as Courts are not possessed of expertise to dispute such

report. Relevant paragraphs read as follows:

“18. Therefore, each case has to be examined whether

the duties assigned to the individual may have led to stress and

strain leading to Psychosis and psychoneurosis. Relapsing forms

of mental disorders which have intervals of normality and

Epilepsy are undetectable diseases while carrying out physical

examination on enrolment, unless adequate history is given at

the time by the member.

______________

Page 15 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.16444 of 2025

19. Therefore, each case has to be examined whether the

duties assigned to the individual may have led to stress and

strain leading to Psychosis and psychoneurosis. Relapsing forms

of mental disorders which have intervals of normality and

Epilepsy are undetectable diseases while carrying out physical

examination on enrolment, unless adequate history is given at

the time by the member. Even if he was suffering from any

mental disorder prior to enrolment, the same could not be

detected as there were intervals of normality. The appellant was

posted in peace station as a Vehicle Mechanic. Neither the nature

of job nor the place of posting was such which could have caused

stress and strain leading to disability as attributed to or

aggravated by military service.

20. In the present case, clause 14(d), as amended in the

year 1996 and reproduced above, would be applicable as

entitlement to disability pension shall not be considered unless it

is clearly established that the cause of such disease was

adversely affected due to factors related to conditions of military

service. Though, the provision of grant of disability pension is a

beneficial provision but, mental disorder at the time of

recruitment cannot normally be detected when a person behaves

normally. Since there is a possibility of non-detection of mental

disorder, therefore, it cannot be said that Schizophrenia is

presumed to be attributed to or aggravated by military service.

21. Though, the opinion of the Medical Board is subject to

judicial review but the Courts are not possessed of expertise to

dispute such report unless there is strong medical evidence on

record to dispute the opinion of the Medical Board which may

warrant the constitution of the Review Medical Board. The

invaliding Medical Board has categorically held that the appellant

is not fit for further service and there is no material on record to

______________

Page 16 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.16444 of 2025

doubt the correctness of the Report of the invaliding Medical

Board.”

16. Again, in the case of Union of India vs. Ex Sep

R.Munusamy reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 619 , the Hon’ble

Supreme Court after considering the Dharamvir Singh’s case, held that

the presumptive factor cannot be applied in a routine manner and

further also held that the Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over the expert

opinion of Medical Board, which found that the disability suffered was

not attributable to or aggravated by military service. In the said

decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus:

“16. The Tribunal does not sit in appeal over the expert

opinion of a Medical Board holding that the disability suffered by

a soldier was not attributable to or aggravated by military

service. There was no reason for the Tribunal not to accept the

opinion of the Release Medical Board held on 30

th

January 1997

and no reasons have been disclosed. In the absence of any

finding of infirmity in the decision making process adopted by the

Release Medical Board, there could be no reason to direct the

constitution of a Resurvey Medical Board, and in any case, not

after two decades from the date of discharge.

.....

25. What exactly is the reason for a disability or ailment

may not be possible for anyone to establish. Many ailments may

not be detectable at the time of medical check-up, particularly

where symptoms occur at intervals. Reliance would necessarily

______________

Page 17 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.16444 of 2025

have to be placed on expert medical opinion based on an in

depth study of the cause and nature of an ailment/disability

including the symptoms thereof, the conditions of service to

which the soldier was exposed and the connection between the

cause/aggravation of the ailment/disability and the conditions

and/or requirements of service. The Tribunal patently erred in

law in proceeding on the basis of a misconceived notion that any

ailment or disability of a soldier, not noted at the time of

recruitment but detected or diagnosed at the time of his

discharge or earlier, would entitle the soldier to disability pension

on the presumption that the disability was attributable to military

service, whether or not the disability led to his discharge, and

the onus was on the employer to prove otherwise, which the

Appellants in this case had failed to do.

17. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Union of

India v. The Registrar, Armed Forces Tribunal, by order dated

07.03.2025 in W.P.No.23491 of 2024 , considered the issue regarding

grant of disability element of pension under the new Regulations when

the Review Medical Board had opined that the disability is n either

attributable to nor aggravated by military service.

18. Following the decisions in Ex CFN Narsingh Yadav’s case and

Ex Sep R.Munusamy’ s case, the Division Bench held that the

presumptive factor cannot be applied in a routine manner so as to

grant disability pension to all the cases. Each case is to be considered

______________

Page 18 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.16444 of 2025

on case-to-case basis and the facts should be ascertained, whether

such disability is attributable to military service or otherwise. Further,

when the High Court is not an expert body, it cannot substitute its

opinion especially for the medical reports. The relevant portion of the

said decision is extracted hereunder:

“19. In the context of the above Judgments, the facts of

each case and the legal principles are to be considered. Let us

now consider the principles laid down in Dharamvir Singh’s case

cited supra. The issue considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court was,

whether the disability which, each one of the respondents

suffered was attributable to or aggravated by military service. In

this context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court made an observation

that the deterioration of health is normally presumed due to

military service unless medical records available on record are

otherwise. It is presumed that at the time of appointment, the

Army man was fit and appointed. Therefore, deterioration of

health is to be attached to the military service rendered and

therefore, the disability pension should be consequential.

20. Pertinently, in Dharamvir Singh’s case, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that from Rule 14(b) Old Pension Regulation

of the Entitlement Rules, it is clear that if the medial opinion was

to hold that the decease suffered by the members of the armed

forces would not have been detected prior to service, the medical

board must state the reasons for saying so. Admittedly, the

disability pension is a beneficial provision and to be interpreted

liberally, so as to benefit those who have been sent home with

disability, even before they completed their tenure in the armed

forces. However, the eligibility criteria is to be fixed based on the

______________

Page 19 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.16444 of 2025

rules and the medical records. The disability pension, even as

per the Dharamvir Singh’s case cannot be automatic, but subject

to assessment by the Release Medical Board and the conditions

stipulated in the rules. It is further observed by the Hon’ble Apex

Court that denial of disability pension can be justified on the

ground it must be affirmatively proved that the decease had

nothing to do with the service. However, the burden to establish

such a disconnect would lie heavily upon the employer or

otherwise the rule raised the presumption.

21. Thus, the spirit of the Judgment is unambiguous. The

Judgment says that if the decease had nothing to do with the

services, then, the employer has to prove the factum. If the

burden of proof is not discharged by the employer, then, the

presumption shall go in favour of the employee. A soldier cannot

be asked to prove that the decease was on account of military

service or was aggravated by the same.

22. The above narration of the principles on Dharamvir

Singh’s case would abundantly make it clear that the disability

pension is not automatic, but to be considered based on the rule

as well as the medical report by the Release Medical Board. Even

the Arms Tribunal has to consider the facts with reference to the

principles laid down in Dharamvir Singh’s case. The presumptive

factor cannot be applied in a routine manner so as to grant

disability pension to all the cases. Each case is to be considered

on case-to-case basis and the facts should be ascertained,

whether such disability is attributable to military service or

otherwise. The presumption would not give a conclusive right to

get disability pension. Presumption is the principle applicable in

the event of department not discharging its duty to establish that

the disability is not attributable to military service.

______________

Page 20 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.16444 of 2025

23. At the outset, this Court is of the considered opinion

that disability pension is a welfare provision, which is to be

extended to the applicable cases. However, such disability

pension cannot be granted automatically merely based on certain

presumptions and assumptions. Pension regulation contemplates

eligibility for disability element of pension and one of the

condition is that the disability is attributable to military service

and the burden of proof is also shifted to the employer to

establish the medical report of the Release Medical Board.

24. As observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in subsequent

Judgments, High Court not being an expert body, cannot

substitute its opinion especially in medical reports. Even, in the

event of submitting an incriminating documents disputing the

medical reports, the course left open to the Courts are to refer

the matter to the Review Medical Board, and the High Court

cannot substitute its opinion on the medical reports.”

19. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the SLP

preferred against the above order of the Coordinate Bench has been

dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, confirming the said decision.

20. In such circumstances, the entitlement of the disability

pension is dependant upon the eligibility under the relevant rules and

the opinion of the Release Medical Board. Presumptive factor comes in

only when the department fails to establish that the disability is not

attributable to military service and the same cannot be applied

______________

Page 21 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.16444 of 2025

mechanically to assume eligibility, ignoring the medical opinion. As per

the Entitlement Rules, for acceptance of a disease as attributable to

military service, the disease ought to have arisen during the period of

military service and caused by the conditions of employment in

military service, which is recorded by the medical board at the time of

discharge/retirement.

21. The decisions relied on by the petitioner are mainly based on

the provisions of 1961 Regulations and Entitlement Rules 1982. There

has been a change in the provisions of 2008 Regulations and

Entitlement Rules 2008, where there is a paradigm shift in respect of

presumption and onus of proof. Admittedly when the petitioner has

retired on 31.05.2021 under the new Regulations and Entitlement

Rules 2008, the grant of the disability pension would be governed

under the new Regulations and the decisions relied on do not support

the case of the petitioner.

22. The Release Medical Board has made the clinical assessment

and observed that the petitioner was incidently detected with high BP

while serving in peace location at Lucknow on 12.05.2021. All other

readings and parameters were found normal and the Board has

______________

Page 22 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.16444 of 2025

observed that on physical examination the disability has neither

deteriorated nor improved from the time of detection and opined that

the disability is not attributable to military service. The petitioner while

challenging the decision of the department taken based on the medical

opinion has not come out with any material or a strong case to differ

from the opinion of the Medical Board, even to seek for a review.

23. The Tribunal, while considering the issue, had taken note of

the service details of the petitioner that except for 2 years from 1997

to 1999, the petitioner had predominantly served in peace areas and

held that the disability of Hypertension detected on 12.05.2021 was

neither attributable to nor aggravated due to military service. Further

when any duty and even normal life during the covid period was

stressful, the endorsement of the commanding officer that the duty

during covid was stressful cannot be taken to be a cause for the

detection of disability primary hypertension that is attributable to

military service.

24. When the Release Medical Board had opined that the

disability primary hypertension detected in the year 2021 while

working in peace area, is neither attributable to nor aggravated by

______________

Page 23 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.16444 of 2025

military service, the Tribunal had rightly by taking note of the

provisions under the new Regulations rejected the claim. We see no

error or infirmity to interfere in the orders passed by the Tribunal.

25. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. There shall

be no order as to costs.

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)

05.03.2026

Index : Yes

Neutral Citation: Yes

sasi/sri

______________

Page 24 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.16444 of 2025

To:

1. Ministry of Defence

Room No.234 - South Block,

New Delhi.

2. The Secretary,

Union of India

DESW, Govt of India,

Ministry of Defence,

South Block, New Delhi - 110 011.

3. The Chief of The Army Staff

Integrated HQ of MoD (Army)

South Block,

New Delhi - 110 011.

4. Additional Dte Gen MPRS(O)

Adjutant General's Branch

IHQ of MoD (Army), 3rd Floor, A-block,

Room No.334 and 335

Defence Office Complex, KG Marg,

New Delhi - 110 001.

5. PCDA (Pensions)

Draupadi Ghat,

Allahabad, UP - 211 014.

6. Armed Forces Tribunal

Regional Bench, Chennai.

______________

Page 25 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.16444 of 2025

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.

(sasi)/sri

WP No.16444 of 2025

05.03.2026

______________

Page 26 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis