HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Pro nounced on: 31.01.2026 Uploaded on: 03.02.2026

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 ...Petitioners(s)

Through:- Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI with Mr. Sumant Sudan, Advocate Versus No.3995566-P Ex Hav Major Singh S/o Shri Natha Singh, R/o Village Jakhol Motta, P.O. Dhanni Tehsil and District Kathua-184143 ...Respondent(s)

Through:- Mr. B.S.Sarmal, Advocate with 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 throw challenge to an order and judgment dated 11^th April, 2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench Srinagar at Jammu [“AFT”] in OA No.110 of 2022 titled Ex Hav Major Singh v. Union of India and others, whereby the AFT has allowed the OA filed by the respondent and set aside the impugned order in the OA, 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%. 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. 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 petitioners 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. In the instant case, the respondent was enrolled in Indian Army on 06.11.1995. He was granted part of annual leave (PAL) from 15.07.2019 to 24.07.2019 (10 days). On 24.07.2019, while the respondent was waiting for a Bus at Bus Stand, Kalibade (Kathua) to board a bus to report at Chandigarh Transit Camp on termination of his leave, he was hit from behind by a vehicle. Due to accident, the petitioner fell unconscious and shifted to Civil Hospital, Kathua from where he was shifted to 167 MH Pathankot on the same night. The respondent was diagnosed with “RTA Open Commuted Fracture Tibia Fibula (RT) (OPTD) (S-82.2)”. After discharge from the hospital, the respondent was granted six weeks sick leave. Thereafter the respondent reported to 167 MH, Pathankot from where he was routed to his unit.

5. The Court of Enquiry proceedings were also held to investigate the circumstances under which the respondent sustained aforesaid injuries while on leave. As per the finding of the Court of Enquiry, “the injury sustained by the respondent was accidental in nature and the same was attributable to miltary service as the individual was on 10 days PAL and no foul play was suspected in the incident. However, as per the opinion of the Court of Enquiy, the injury is indicated to be not attributable to the military service contrary to the finding rrecorded in the report. Subsequently, Release Medical Board examined the respondent, which assessed the disability “Open Commuted Fracture Tibia Fibula (RT) (OPTD)” suffered by the respondent @ 30% for life and regarded the same neither attributable to nor aggravated by mi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document