Introduction

In Union of India & Ors. v. Shukar Singh (2025 JKLHC-JMU 2396-DB), the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu dismissed a writ petition by the Union of India and allied authorities challenging a judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench Srinagar at Jammu (OA No. 215 of 2019). The case centers on a perennial and significant question in military disability jurisprudence: whether the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) [PCDA(P)] can sit in judgment over, vary, or dilute the disability percentage assessed by a duly constituted Re-Survey Medical Board (RSMB).

The respondent, Ex Naik (TS) Shukar Singh of the Jammu & Kashmir Light Infantry (JAKLI), served from 18 February 1976 until his honorable discharge upon completion of tenure on 29 February 1992. He incurred a disability diagnosed as Lumbar Spondylosis with backache, which was accepted as aggravated by military service. Following multiple assessments, disputes arose over the disability percentage and consequent entitlement to the disability element of pension, culminating in PCDA(P) reductions that the Tribunal quashed and the High Court has now affirmed.

Key issues:

• Whether PCDA(P) has the jurisdiction to review or reduce the disability percentage fixed by a duly constituted Medical Board/RSMB.
• Whether the doctrine of rounding-off of disability percentages applies even when an individual is not invalided out but retires on superannuation with an attributable/aggravated disability.
• How delay and laches influence the grant of arrears in disability pension claims.

Summary of the Judgment

The Division Bench (Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar) upheld the Tribunal’s order that:

• Quashed the PCDA(P)’s orders dated 24.09.1999 and 16.12.2002 that reduced/denied disability pension contrary to medical board opinions.
• Restored primacy of the RSMB assessment, holding that PCDA(P) could not have suo motu altered the disability percentage.
• Recognized the respondent’s entitlement to the disability element of pension, commencing from 25 June 2014, while restricting arrears to only three years prior to the OA filing date (18 April 2019), to account for delay.
• Affirmed that rounding-off of disability percentages applies even to superannuated personnel where the disability is attributable to or aggravated by service, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Ram Avtar.
• Clarified that while the RSMB’s September 1996 assessment of 20% disability for ten years governs that window, the authorities remain free to convene a fresh RSMB to assess disability post 06 September 2006.

Consequence: The Union of India’s writ petition was dismissed as meritless; the Tribunal’s calibrated relief stands.

Factual Matrix and Timeline

• 18.02.1976: Respondent joins the Army in fit medical condition.
• 29.02.1992: Discharged on completion of tenure, not on medical invalidation.
• At discharge: Disability (Lumbar Spondylosis with backache) noted; initially assessed at 6–10% (aggravated by service). PCDA(P) nevertheless sanctioned disability element at 20% for five years, which the respondent accepted.
• September 1996: RSMB assesses disability at 20% for ten years. PCDA(P) unilaterally reduces it to 11–14% for five years (26.12.1996 to 05.09.2001), without reasons or reference to a higher medical board.
• 04.06.2002: Another RSMB assesses 11–14% for life; based on this, the disability element is effectively denied post 26.12.1996.
• 18.04.2019: OA filed before AFT, which is allowed on 23.12.2021.
• 19.08.2025: High Court dismisses the Union’s writ and affirms the AFT order.

Note: The judgment narrative mentions both 06.09.1996 and 26.09.1996 as dates for the RSMB; the Bench treats the September 1996 RSMB as the controlling medical assessment.

Detailed Analysis

1) Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. A.V. Damodaran (2009) 9 SCC 140: The Supreme Court emphasized the central role and primacy of Medical Boards in determining the causation (attributability or aggravation) and the degree and duration of disability. The High Court relies on this to reaffirm that medical expertise—not administrative accounting offices—must drive disability determinations.
• Ex Sapper Mohinder Singh v. Union of India (Civil Appeal No. 164/1993, decided 14.01.1993): A seminal authority holding that PCDA(P) lacks jurisdiction to sit over or substitute its own assessment for that of Medical Boards. If the accounting authority disagrees, the proper course is to seek reconsideration by a higher/appellate medical board under applicable instructions, not to unilaterally recast disability percentages. This case is the backbone of the High Court’s conclusion that PCDA(P)’s reduction was ultra vires.
• Janak Raj v. Union Of India, 2000 (1) RSJ 706 (P&H HC): A High Court decision reinforcing the same proposition: PCDA is not an expert body to determine medical disability percentage or attributability/aggravation and cannot alter medical board findings to the prejudice of the soldier. The Jammu Bench cites this to show the settled nature of the principle.
• Union of India v. Ram Avtar (Civil Appeal No. 418/2012, decided 10.12.2014): The Supreme Court clarified that rounding-off of disability percentages is available not only to those invalided out but also to personnel who retire on superannuation, provided the disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service. This defeats the Union’s objection that rounding-off cannot avail a superannuated soldier.

2) Court’s Legal Reasoning

• Primacy of Medical Boards: The Court reiterates that the findings of a duly constituted Medical Board/RSMB on disability percentage and its service connection deserve primacy. Judicial review of such medical opinions is narrow; however, administrative deviations from these opinions without medical basis are unlawful.
• PCDA(P) has no adjudicatory medical role: The PCDA(P) is an accounting/sanctioning authority. It cannot unilaterally review or vary medical percentages assessed by specialists. If there is a genuine doubt, the only permissible path is to refer the matter for reconsideration by an appropriate appellate or higher medical board under the relevant Army medical instructions. A unilateral percentage reduction, without reasons or medical referral, is beyond jurisdiction.
• Invalid second RSMB when triggered by an illegal administrative act: The Court characterizes the 04.06.2002 RSMB and its use to deny benefits as “uncalled for,” given that the 1996 RSMB had already fixed 20% for ten years. The correct approach would have been to honor the 1996 RSMB for its duration and, if necessary, reassess after that period.
• Entitlement window and future reassessment: Respecting the 1996 RSMB, the Court affirms entitlement to the disability element for the ten-year span from September 1996. For periods beyond that ten-year window, the authorities may convene a fresh RSMB (post 06.09.2006) to determine the then-prevailing disability, if any.
• Rounding-off applies to superannuation cases: The Court rejects the Union’s argument against rounding-off for a superannuated soldier, holding that Ram Avtar governs and rounding-off is available when the disability is attributable to or aggravated by service.
• Delay and laches—calibrated relief: Acknowledging that the respondent approached the Tribunal after many years, the AFT limited arrears to three years before the OA filing date. The High Court finds this a fair balancing: entitlement is recognized, but stale monetary claims beyond three years are not reopened due to delay.

3) The Court’s Approach to Conflicting Dates and Relief

The judgment recognizes that the RSMB’s September 1996 20% assessment governed a ten-year entitlement period. Nonetheless, the Court ultimately sustains the Tribunal’s specific relief structure, namely:

• Continuance of disability element w.e.f. 25 June 2014; and
• Arrears confined to three years prior to OA filing (from 18 April 2016), as a laches-based limitation, without disturbing the AFT’s overall directions.

Read as a whole, the Bench both reaffirms the doctrinal entitlement under the 1996 RSMB and endorses the Tribunal’s pragmatic, delay-sensitive remedy.

4) Impact and Prospective Significance

• Administrative practice at PCDA(P) and Record Offices: Accounting authorities cannot reduce medical percentages fixed by RSMBs/IMBs. If they disagree, they must initiate a medical reconsideration through proper channels. Unilateral reductions are voidable.
• Tribunal and High Court litigation: Soldiers whose disability elements were denied or scaled down by PCDA(P) contrary to medical boards have a strong basis to challenge such decisions. This ruling provides a clear roadmap: point to the primacy of medical boards and demand either acceptance or referral to a higher medical board—not administrative second-guessing.
• Rounding-off stability: The decision consolidates the availability of rounding-off to superannuated personnel, reducing litigation over this threshold issue.
• Delay management: While entitlement may be recognized, arrears can be curtailed to recent periods to discourage stale claims. Future litigants should act promptly to preserve arrear claims.
• Policy calibration: The Ministry of Defence and PCDA(P) may need to revise internal SOPs and training to ensure that all disagreements with medical assessments are channeled only through medical review mechanisms.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Medical Board / RSMB: A panel of Armed Forces doctors that assesses whether an ailment/injury is attributable to or aggravated by service, the percentage of disability, and its expected duration. Re-Survey Medical Boards (RSMBs) reassess disability after a prior term ends.
• Attributable vs. Aggravated: “Attributable” means the disability was caused by service; “aggravated” means pre-existing conditions worsened due to service. Both can qualify a soldier for disability element of pension under applicable rules.
• PCDA(P): The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) is the sanctioning authority for pension payments. It is not a medical authority and cannot decide medical causation or percentages; it must defer to medical boards or seek a higher medical review when necessary.
• Disability Element vs. Service Element: Disability element is a component of pension tied to the percentage of service-connected disability. Service element is based on length and nature of service. One may receive both, subject to conditions.
• Thresholds and Rounding-off: Historically, a minimum disability (often 20%) was required to qualify for disability element. Rounding-off is a judicially recognized principle that increases a medically assessed percentage to the next higher slab for pension computation. As clarified in Ram Avtar, rounding-off is available even when a soldier retires on superannuation (not just when invalided), if the disability is attributable to or aggravated by service.
• Invalided vs. Superannuated: Invalided out means premature discharge on medical grounds. Superannuated means discharge on completion of tenure/age. This judgment confirms that superannuated soldiers can still receive the disability element (with rounding-off) for service-connected disabilities.
• Delay and Laches: Courts may recognize entitlement but limit arrears to a recent period (e.g., last three years) if a claim is pursued after an inordinate delay, as a fairness measure balancing equity and fiscal certainty.

Practical Takeaways for Stakeholders

• For veterans: Preserve and produce your Medical Board/RSMB proceedings (AFMSF-16 and related records). If PCDA(P) reduces your percentage contrary to an RSMB, demand either compliance or a medical reboard—not an administrative override.
• For administrators: If an RSMB fixes a percentage and you disagree, refer the case to an appellate/higher medical board as per Army medical instructions. Do not unilaterally alter medical percentages.
• For counsel: Anchor claims in A.V. Damodaran (primacy of medical boards), Mohinder Singh (PCDA cannot sit over medical experts), Janak Raj (PCDA lacks medical expertise), and Ram Avtar (rounding-off for superannuated). Prepare for laches-based limitation on arrears.
• For policymakers: Review SOPs to ensure disputes about disability percentages are resolved through medical channels and that rounding-off policy is consistently applied.

Conclusion

The High Court’s judgment delivers three clear messages. First, the medical domain belongs to medical experts: PCDA(P) cannot usurp the function of Medical Boards by unilaterally re-evaluating disability percentages. Second, the rounding-off doctrine extends to superannuated soldiers where service connection exists, aligning with binding Supreme Court authority. Third, while courts and tribunals will rectify unlawful denials of disability benefits, they may temper financial consequences through arrears limitations where claims are delayed.

Situated within a robust line of Supreme Court and High Court precedents, this decision fortifies the rule of medical primacy in disability pension matters and offers a pragmatic framework for handling delayed claims. For service personnel and administrators alike, the case emphasizes lawful process: accept medical board findings or seek a higher medical review—do not substitute administrative judgment for clinical expertise.