HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Reserved on: 27.09.2025 Pronounced on: 13.11.2025 Uploaded on: 14.11.2025 WP(C) No.704/2024

1. Union of India through its Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi-110011

2. Additional Director General Personnel Services, Adjutant General‟s Branch, Integrated HQ of Ministry of Defence (Army), DHQ PO, New Delhi-110001

3. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad Uttar Pradesh-211014 ...Petitioners(s)

Through:- Mr. Vikas Sharma, Sr. Panel Counsel Versus JC-594381L Ex Sub Parshotam lal S/o Shri Natha Ram R/o Village-Badyal Quzian, Post Office & Tehsil: R.S.Pura, District Jammu-181102. ...Respondent(s)

Through:- Mr. B.S.Sarmal, Advocate Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Kumar “J

1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Union of India and others seek to throw challenge to an order and judgment dated 3^rd March, 2022 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench Srinagar at Jammu [“AFT”] in OA No.208 of 2021 titled Ex Sub Parshotam Lal v. Union of India and others, whereby the AFT has allowed the OA filed by the respondent and set aside the impugned order, whereby the respondent‟s claim of disability pension was rejected. The was held entitled to disability pension @ 50% as against 20% for life, from the date of discharge i.e. 01.11.2020. Strong reliance has been placed by the AFT on Dhahramvir Singh v. Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 316, and Union of India v. Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1761.

2. The impugned judgment of the AFT is assailed by the petitioners on the ground that the AFT has failed to consider that the disability of the respondent had been assessed by the Release Medical Board as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. No causal connection has been established by the respondent between his disability and military service. The AFT also did not appreciate that the medical board is an expert body and its opinion is entitled to be given due weight, value and credence.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by the AFT is perfectly legal and does not call for any interference by us in the exercise of our extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 4. The facts which led to the filing of instant petition are that the respondent was enrolled in military service on 1^st November, 1990 in a fit state of health. During the course of his service, the respondent incurred the disability of “Cyst 3^rd Ventricle (OPTD) (G.93.0)” and was, thus, finally discharged from service on 31^st October, 2020. Before discharge, the Release Medical Board assessed the disability incurred by the respondent @20% for life but declared to be neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Accordingly, respondent‟s claim for disability pension was rejected. The first appeal filed by the respondent against rejection of his claim for disability pension yielded no result.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed OA No. 208 of 2021 before the AFT seeking inter alia a direction to the petitioners herein to grant disability pension in favour of the respondent with effect from the date of discharge @ 50% as against 20%. The OA was contested by the petitioners herein on the ground that since the invaliding disease was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, hence the respondent was not entitled to disability pension. It was submitted that the opinion of the Medical Board, being an expert body, was

accepted and must be respected by courts as well.

7. The AFT having considered the OA in the light of rival contentions of the parties and having regard to the legal and factual position obtaining in the matter, held the respondent entitled to disability pension @ 30% with the ben