HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Reserved on: 06.10.2025 Pronounced on: 13.11.2025 Uploaded on: 14.11.2025 WP(C) No.1920/2024

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. The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension).

Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh-211014

4. OIC Records, Armoured Records, PIN-901277 C/o 56 APO ...Petitioners(s)

Through:- Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI with Mr. Eishan Dadhichi, CGSC Versus NO-10361787M Ex Naik Makhan Singh S/o Shri Bharkat Singh R/o Village: Tanda, Post Office: Sujwan, Tehsil & District: Samba, PIN-184120.

...Respondent(s)

Through:- Mr. Rajnish Raina, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Parbhat Sangotra, Advocate Mr. P.L.Sharma, Advocate.

Mr. Om Goswami, 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 two others seek to throw challenge to an order and judgment dated 10^th April, 2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench Srinagar at Jammu [“AFT”] in OA No.74 of 2023 titled No.10361787M Ex Naik Makhan Singh v. Union of India and others, whereby the AFT has allowed the OA filed by the respondent and set aside the impugned orders in the OA, whereby the respondent‟s claim of disability pension was rejected. The respondent has been held entitled to disability pension @ 40% for life with the benefit of rounding off to 50% with effect from three years preceding the date of filing of OA. 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 regarded 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. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would support the judgment passed by the AFT. It is argued that the AFT has taken care of all aspects of the matter.

4. 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. 5. The facts which are not in dispute are that the respondent was enrolled in Indian Army on 31^st December, 1986 in a fit state of health and discharged on 25^th March, 1996. He was re-enrolled in Defence Security Corps (DSC) on 15.06.1996 and discharged from DSC service on 30^th November, 2019 in low medical category. Before discharge, the respondent was brought before a duly constituted Release Medical Board, which assessed the disability “Primary Hypertension” incurred by the respondent @ 40% for life, however, 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.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed OA No. 74 of 2023 before the AFT seeking inter alia a direction to the petitioners herein to grant the disability element of disability pension @50% as against 40% with effect from the date of his invalidment. The OA was contested by the petitioners herein and the stand taken was that the invaliding disease in the case of the respondent was regarded as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, hence he was