SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has upheld an Armed Forces Tribunal order granting disability pension to an ex-serviceman, Babu Ram, holding that the medical board’s unexplained rejection of his claim could not override the legal presumption in his favour.
A Division Bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem dismissed a writ petition filed by the Union of India and other defence authorities, finding no illegality in the tribunal’s July 13, 2022, order granting Ram disability pension with the benefit of rounding off.
The judgment was pronounced on October 13, 2026, in WP(C) No. 1518/2024, after the matter had been reserved on December 17, 2025.
Ram, a resident of Patiyal village in Bishnah tehsil of Jammu district, was initially enrolled in the Indian Army on December 7, 1971. He was discharged on December 31, 1995, after completing 24 years of qualifying service and was granted service pension.
He subsequently joined the Defence Security Corps (DSC) on March 16, 1998, for an initial engagement of 10 years and was discharged on March 31, 2008.
Before his discharge, a Release Medical Board assessed his disability, described as bilateral cataract with pseudophakia, at 15–19 per cent. The board concluded that the condition was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. His disability pension claim was consequently rejected, as were his first and second appeals.
Challenging the rejection, Ram approached the Armed Forces Tribunal, which allowed his application on July 13, 2022. The tribunal held him entitled to disability pension at 50 per cent after rounding off, subject to verification, with effect from June 25, 2014, against the assessed disability of 20 per cent.
The tribunal restricted arrears to three years preceding the filing of his original application on October 23, 2015, and directed that the payment be released within three months of receipt of the certified order. It also ordered interest at eight per cent if the payment was delayed beyond the stipulated period.
The Union Government challenged the tribunal’s decision before the High Court, arguing that the medical board had specifically ruled out any connection between the disability and military service. It maintained that the disability was below the prescribed 20 per cent threshold and that the tribunal should not have interfered with the findings of an expert medical body.
Ram’s counsel argued that no disability had been recorded either when he initially joined the Army or when he was re-enrolled in the DSC. His counsel further submitted that the medical board had not provided any reasons to support its conclusion that the condition was unrelated to military service.
The High Court observed that the absence of any recorded disability at the time of enrolment, coupled with the manifestation of the condition during service, attracted the legal presumption in favour of the former serviceman. It noted that the Release Medical Board had offered no reasons for concluding that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.
Relying on Supreme Court judgments, including Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and Union of India v. Rajbir Singh, the Bench reiterated that personnel are presumed to have been medically fit when they enter service, except for conditions specifically recorded at that stage. Where a disability develops during service, the presumption ordinarily operates in favour of the individual unless the contrary is established in accordance with the applicable rules.
The court also referred to Regulation 179 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, read with Regulation 266 applicable to Defence Security Corps personnel, which addresses disability pension entitlement for individuals discharged on completion of their engagement while suffering from a disability attributable to or aggravated by military service.
The Bench further upheld the tribunal’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sukhvinder Singh v. Union of India, which held that disability pension cannot be denied merely because the assessed disability is below 20 per cent once the individual is otherwise found entitled to the benefit.
Rejecting the Centre’s contention that the medical board’s opinion should be treated as final, the High Court said such findings, although entitled to due weight, remain open to judicial scrutiny. An opinion unsupported by reasons and inconsistent with established legal principles governing disability pension need not be accepted by a court.
The Bench observed that disability pension provisions are beneficial in nature and are intended to provide financial security to armed forces personnel who suffer disabilities during service. Such provisions, it said, must be interpreted liberally in their favour, particularly where no disability was recorded at the time of entry into service.
Finding no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the Armed Forces Tribunal’s order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition along with the connected applications.
