1. Discharge from military service on medical invalidation due to schizophrenia — denial of disability pension based on Medical Board's finding of non-attributability to service. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 786
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Rajumon T.M. – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 998 of 2025 (@ Diary No. 20836 of 2022)
Decided On : 07-05-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Thomas P. Joseph, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tom Joseph, AOR Dr. Duvvada Ramesh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Shashank Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Shyam Gopal, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Thomas P. Joseph, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tom Joseph, AOR Dr. Duvvada Ramesh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Shashank Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Shyam Gopal, Adv.
Disability pension claims require medical opinions to be substantiated with detailed reasoning. The absence of justification in medical assessments can invalidate decisions denying pension benefits, specifically for conditions like schizophrenia.
Headnote:(A) Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 - Regulation 173 - Denial of disability pension - The claim denied as the medical board found the disability neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. The claim was rejected based on an insufficient medical opinion without reasons provided. The court underscored the need for detailed reasoning from medical authorities in assessing disability pensions. (Paras 10, 20-36)
(B) Medical Board - Opinion of the Medical Board should carry primacy but must be substantiated with reasons to support its conclusions, especially in cases affecting a serviceman's rights. (Paras 12, 34)
(C) Court affirmed that a liberal interpretation is required in matters concerning disability pension for servicemen, particularly for conditions such as schizophrenia. (Paras 30, 34)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a former member of the army, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had his disability pension claim denied based on findings that the condition was constitutional and unrelated to service. After numerous appeals, the Armed Forces Tribunal upheld the rejection.
Findings of Court:
The medical opinion lacked adequate reasoning; therefore, the dismissal of the appellant's claim was deemed invalid. The court directed the grant of disability pension immediately, excluding arrears beyond three years.
Issues: The main issues were whether the medical board's opinion on the disability was adequate and whether the condition was related to military service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that medical opinions influencing discharge and pension decisions must not only be based on findings but should also involve careful reasoning to avoid arbitrary conclusions.
Result: Appeal allowed; disability pension granted with immediate effect.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant claims entitlement as disease developed during service; respondents contend disease was constitutional and occurred at peace station, thus not attributable to or aggravated by military service. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. Medical Board failed to provide reasons for its conclusion or record clinical history, rendering the denial of disability pension arbitrary and violative of mandatory regulations. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 )
4. A Medical Board's opinion for denying disability pension must be supported by reasons; a bare conclusion without reasons is arbitrary and unsustainable in law. (Para 24 , 25 , 34 )
5. Appeal allowed — disability pension granted with immediate effect, with arrears limited to the preceding three years. (Para 38 , 39 )
6. Is a Medical Board required to provide reasons when determining if a disability is attributable to military service?
Yes. Under Regulation 423(d), the Medical Board must specify reasons for its opinion. A conclusion devoid of reasons is considered arbitrary, lacks application of mind, and cannot sustain the denial of disability pension. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 )
7. When is a disease deemed to have arisen during military service for the purpose of disability pension?
A disease is ordinarily deemed to have arisen in service if no note of it was made during the individual's acceptance for service, unless medical opinion states it could not have been detected. (Para 16 , 17 )
8. Does a posting to a peace station preclude a disability from being attributable to military service?
No. Regulation 423(a) specifies that it is immaterial whether the cause of disability occurred in a field service/active service area or under normal peace conditions; the essential factor is the causal connection with service conditions. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 )
9. How should provisions for disability pensions be interpreted by courts?
As beneficial schemes intended to provide succour to servicemen, they must be interpreted liberally. This is especially true for conditions like schizophrenia, which may impair a person's ability to prove causal connections. (Para 30 , 31 )
JUDGMENT :
(Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.)
The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and final order dated 17.01.2013 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi in OA No.100 of 2011 by which the claim of the appellant for grant of disabilities pension was denied to the appellant.
2. Only the relevant facts in brief for the purpose of deciding this appeal may be adverted to.
3. The appellant, Rajumon T.M. No.13978552W was enrolled in the Indian Army on 17.11.1988 as a sepoy and after serving more than 9 (nine) years he was discharged from service on being diagnosed with Schizophrenia. His discharge on medical invalidation was based on the opinion of the Invalidating Medical Board held on 30 March, 1998 at the Command Hospital, Western Command, Chandimandir which found that the onset of the invalidating disease was in August 1993 during which period the appellant had served in a peace station and that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service and the said disease of the appellant was constitutional in nature and not connected with the service. The disability was assessed at 30 percent for two years. Accordingly, the appellant’s claim for disability pension was rejected by the CCDA (Pension), Allahabad vide letter dated 04.01.1999 which was communicated to the appellant by the AMC Records vide letter dated 15.01.1999.
4. The said rejection was challenged before the first appellate committee which was dismissed. The appellant, thereafter, made an unsuccessful attempt for redressal of his grievances through a Member of the Parliament. The appellant was informed by the Ministry of Defence vide communication dated 07.11.2009 that the matter had already been considered and his appeal against rejection of disability pension claim was turned down earlier by the competent authority. He was also informed that he had not preferred the second appeal after his first appeal was dismissed.
5. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his claim for disability pension, the appellant unsuccessfully approached the Armed Forces Tribunal, Original Bench at Kochi in OA No.100 of 2011 which was heard with other applicants seeking similar reliefs.
6. Before the Armed Forces Tribunal it was pleaded by the appellant that he had been found medically fit at the time of enrolment and nothing adverse was noted at that point of time and the appellant became afflicted with the said disease during his service which had nothing to do with the family conditions and since the said disease developed in course of his service, he was entitled to the disability pension.
7. The respondents contested the claim of the appellant before the Armed Forces Tribunal by contending that the appellant had been posted at peace station at the time of onset of the disease and being deployed in peace stations, and it could not have contributed to the said illness nor can the service said to have aggravated the disease, which was confirmed by the Medical Board on examination of the appellant as mentioned above. Further, it was contended that nothing was brought on record to contradict the finding of the Medical Board and as such the claim of the appellant could not be entertained.
8. In support of the claim of the respondents, a number of decisions of this Court were relied upon namely; Union of India & Ors. vs. Keshar Singh, (2007) 12 SCC 675; Union of India & Ors. vs. Surinder Singh Rathore, (2008) 5 SCC 747; Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Ors. vs. A.V.Damodaran (Dead) through LRs. and others, (2009) 9 SCC 140; Union of India & Ors. vs. Jujhar Singh, (2011) 7 SCC 735; Union of India and Anr. vs. Talwinder Singh , (2012) 5 SCC 480, No. 14666828M EX CFN Narsingh Yadav vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 9 SCC 667, and the decision of Kerala High Court in Baby vs. Union of India , 2003 (3) KLT 362 (FB).
9. The Tribunal, on consideration of the aforesaid decisions and relevant Rules made the following observations in para 17 of
