Order

1. The challenge in present writ petition is to order passed by learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Jaipur, Circuit Bench at Jodhpur (for short, "AFT") dated 22.03.2024 whereby, prayer made by petitioner for directing Respondents for grant of disability element of disability pension @40% along with rounding off benefits to 50% for life was denied.

2. Admittedly, petitioner was discharged from service on 31.07.2020 after rendering 17 years, 7 months and 12 days of service. At the time of discharge, Release Medical Board assessed his disability “Unspecified Non Organic Psychosis” @40% for life however, considered it as Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated by Military Service (“NANA”). Petitioner has been granted service pension for life, however, disability element of disability pension along with rounding off benefits has not been granted on the ground that said disability was considered as NANA.

3. Learned AFT while taking into consideration the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ex Cfn Narsingh Yadav Vs. Union of India in Civil Appeal No.7672/2019 (Diary No.27850 of 2017), has held that mental disorders which lie outside the realm of being medically detected during the enrolment process cannot be claimed to be attributable to rigours of service at a later stage. Therefore, petitioner’s disease, “Unspecified Non Organic Psychosis” clearly falls outside the purview of attributability / aggravation to military service, thus making him ineligible for disability pension.

4. Hon’ble Apex Court in Bijender Singh v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 895 after considering the law as laid down, from time to time in previous judgments, including that of Dharamvir Singh Vs. Union of India: (2013) 7 SCC 316 Union of India Vs. Rajbir Singh: (2015) 12 SCC 264 and K.J.S. Buttar Vs. Union of India (2011) 11 SCC 429 as well as Rule 183 of Pension Regulations for the Army Part I (1961),held as under:

“45.1. Thus, this Court held that essence of the Rules is that a member of the armed forces is presumed to be in sound physical and mental condition at the time of his entry into the service if there is no note or record to the contrary made at the time of such entry. In the event of subsequent discharge from service on medical ground, any deterioration in health would be presumed to be due to military service. The burden would be on the employer to rebut the presumption that the disability suffered by the member was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. If the Medical Board is of the opinion that the disease suffered by the member could not have been detected at the time of entry into service, the Medical Board has to give reasons for saying so. This Court highlighted that the provision for payment of disability pension is a beneficial one which ought to be interpreted liberally. A soldier cannot be asked to prove that the disease was contracted by him on account of military service or was aggravated by the same. The very fact that upon proper physical and other tests, the member was found fit to serve in the army would give rise to a presumption that he was disease free at the time of his entry into service. For the employer to say that such a disease was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, the least that is required to be done is to furnish reasons for taking such a view.”

5. It has also taken into consideration instructions dated 31.01.2001 which provided that if the disability is less than 50%,it would be reckoned as 50%, between 50% to 75%, it would be reckoned as 75% and if disability is between 76% to 100%, it would be reckoned as 100%.

6. Thus, where a disease is detected and respondents contend that it is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, the burden of proof lies with employer to show that disease existed prior to member’s enrollment in armed forces. However, if no record or note of suc