HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Reserved on: 18.10.2025 Pronounced on: 13.11.2025 Uploaded on: 14.11.2025 WP(C) No.1805/2025

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

2. The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension).

Prayagraj.

3. The Chief of the Army Staff

4. OIC Records, The Jammu and Kashmir Light Infantry Regiment, PIN-900476 C/o 56 APO ...Petitioners(s)

Through:- Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI with Mr. Eishan Dadhichi, CGSC Versus JC-593594M Ex Sub Balak Ram Sharma, aged about 56 years S/o Late Sh. Sodagar Mal R/o Village Badali, Tehsil and District Samba (UT of J&K)

...Respondent(s)

Through:- Mr. Susheel Kumar Sharma, 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 31^st January, 2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench Srinagar at Jammu [“AFT”] in OA No.37 of 2023 titled Ex Sub Balak Ram Sharma v.

Union of India and others, whereby the AFT has allowed the OA filed by the respondent and set aside the impugned order(s), whereby the respondent‟s claim of disability pension was rejected. The respondent has been held entitled to disability pension @ 50% for life as against 30%. 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. However, arrears on account of disability pension were restricted to three years preceding the date of filing of the OA i.e. 24.01.2023.

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. The AFT also did not appreciate that the opinion of the Medical Board consisting of experts was not amenable to judicial review by the Court unless there was strong medical evidence on record to dispute such opinion.

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 are not in dispute are that the respondent was enrolled in Indian Army on 28^th May, 1987 in a fit state of health and discharged on 30^th April, 2015 in low medical category SHAPE2 (Permt) E1 “Primary Hypertension” after rendering 27 years, 11 months and 11 days service. Before discharge, the respondent was brought before a duly constituted Release Medical Board, which assessed the disability incurred by the respondent @30% for life and regarded the same as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Respondent‟s claim for grant of disability pension was, accordingly, rejected by the petitioners. The first appeal preferred by the respondent, too, came to be rejected. The second appeal filed by the respondent was of no avail.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed OA No. 37 of 2023 before the AFT seeking inter alia a direction to the petitioners herein to grant the disability element of disability pension w.e.f. 01.05.2015 @30% along with benefit of rounding off to 50%. The OA was contested by the petitioners herein on the ground that the invaliding disease in the case of the respondent was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, hence he 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.

6. The AFT having considered the OA in the light of rival contentions of the parties and having regard to the legal and factual position obtain