Introduction

The case of Union of India v. No. 2648428 Ex-Hav and Hony Nb/Sub Raghbir Singh, decided by the Rajasthan High Court on April 8, 2025, raises a crucial question about whether the pay‐accounting authorities can re‐evaluate a disability assessment once it has been fixed by a duly constituted Medical Board. The petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Jaipur Bench, which had granted the respondent disability pension at 20% (rounded to 50%) for life, and directed payment of arrears with interest.

Parties:

• Petitioners: Union of India (Ministry of Defence), Principal Controller of Defence Accounts, and OIC Records, The Grenadiers.
• Respondent: No. 2648428 Ex-Hav and Hony Nb/Sub Raghbir Singh, aged 77, resident of Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

Key Issue: Whether the Pension Accounts authorities (PCDA(P)) have jurisdiction or competence to alter or re‐assess the disability percentage fixed by the Regimental/Review Medical Board.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court dismissed the writ petition under Article 227, upholding the AFT’s order that granted the respondent disability pension benefits based on the 20% disability assessment by the Regimental Service Medical Board dated March 12, 1998. The petitioners had challenged:

• The AFT’s reliance on Ex Sapper Mohinder Singh v. Union of India (1993), which holds that only a Medical Board can assess the extent and duration of disability.
• A subsequent reassessment by PCDA(P) on April 5, 2003, reducing the disability to 11–14% for five years, contending it was valid and extinguished pension entitlement under Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India v. Wing Commander S.P. Rathore (2019).

The High Court found that:

• The PCDA(P) had no expertise or jurisdiction to sit over the Medical Board’s opinion and re‐assess disability.
• The Supreme Court’s decision in Wing Commander Rathore was distinguishable as the reduction itself was unlawful and contrary to Mohinder Singh.

Result: Petition dismissed; AFT order maintained.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• Ex Sapper Mohinder Singh v. Union of India (1993): Held that once a Medical Board determines both the extent and duration of disability, the Accounts Department cannot question or re‐evaluate the medical findings. The medical opinion is final for pension purposes.
• Union of India v. Wing Commander S.P. Rathore (2019): Clarified that if disability is assessed below 20%, no rounding‐off rule applies and no disability pension is payable. However, this rule presupposes that the assessment itself is valid.

The AFT and the High Court treated Mohinder Singh as the controlling precedent on procedural propriety of disability assessment. The petitioners relied on Rathore to argue pension exclusion, but the High Court concluded that Rathore was inapplicable because the reduction made by PCDA(P) was itself unlawful.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning follows a two-step approach:

1. Jurisdictional competence: The pension regulations vest exclusive authority in Medical Boards to assess disability. The role of PCDA(P) is ministerial—to process sanctioned benefits, not to supplant medical expertise.
2. Distinguishability of Rathore: In Rathore, the initial Medical Board assessment itself was less than 20%, so there was no question of mandatory rounding up. Here, the Medical Board’s original determination stood at 20% for life, and only the PCDA(P)’s after‐the‐fact reassessment was impugned.

The Court applied Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction sparingly, finding no error or perversity in the AFT’s application of settled law.

Impact

This judgment crystallizes the principle that:

• The Accounts Department must accept Medical Board assessments without independent re‐evaluation.
• Any alteration by pay‐accounting authorities, however well‐intentioned, is legally impermissible.

Future cases will likely cite this decision to block post‐hoc disability reductions. It reinforces administrative boundaries and safeguards ex-servicemen’s pension rights.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Regimental/Review Medical Board: A panel of medical experts tasked with assessing the presence, degree and permanence of disability for service personnel.
• PCDA(P) Reassessment: A financial authority’s attempt to re‐appraise the Medical Board’s finding for pension disbursement purposes.
• Rounding‐Off Rule: A provision that if disability is assessed at exactly 20%, the pension entitlement is “rounded off” to a higher threshold (here 50%).
• Article 227: Grants High Courts the power to supervise and correct orders of subordinate courts or tribunals for jurisdictional errors or perversity.

Conclusion

The Rajasthan High Court, affirming the AFT, has entrenched a fundamental principle in military pension law: once a duly constituted Medical Board determines the extent and duration of a service‐related disability, neither the pension accounts office nor any other administrative authority can second‐guess that medical opinion. The decision preserves the sanctity of medical expertise and ensures that ex‐servicemen receive the benefits awarded without unwarranted bureaucratic interference. This ruling will serve as a vital precedent protecting the rights of disabled veterans across India.