LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/bijender-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-20250423/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Bijender Singh vs Union of India & Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
23 April 2025
Case No.
Civil Appeal No(s). 4458-4459 of 2024
Result
Allowed
Bench
Abhay S. Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan
Citation
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1550 : 2025 INSC 549
Acts & Sections
Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules… Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary…
Supreme Court Reports [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1550 : 2025 INSC 549
Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to the correctness of order passed by the tribunal dismissing the review application and holding that disability of the appellant was less than 20%.
Headnote

Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 – ss.14, 30 – Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 – Regs 173, 183 – Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 – rr.5 – Disability pension – Appellant, enrolled in the army, as invalided out from service on account of low medical category for the disease generalized tonic clonic seizure old 345 V-67 assessed at less than 20% on the recommendations of the Invaliding Medical Board – Case of the appellant that he was hale and hearty when he had joined the army but suffered the disability during his posting at high altitude glacier – Appellant was granted disability pension consisting of the service element only since the disability was assessed at less than 20% and held as not attributable to or aggravated by military service – Challenge to – Tribunal held that disability of the appellant was less than 20% – Review application thereagainst also dismissed – Correctness:

Read the full headnote (1 more paragraph)

Held: Tribunal simply went by the remarks of the Invaliding Medical Board and Re-Survey Medical Boards to hold that since the disability of the appellant was less than 20%, he would not be entitled to the disability element of the disability pension – Tribunal did not examine the issue as to whether the disability was attributable to or aggravated by military service – Neither has it been mentioned by the Invaliding Medical Board nor by the ReSurvey Medical Boards that the disease for which the appellant was invalided out of service could not be detected at the time of entry into military service – Invaliding Medical Board was quite categorical that no disability of the appellant existed before entering service – If there is no note or report of the Medical Board at the time of entry into service that member suffered from any particular disease, the presumption would be that the member got afflicted by the said disease because of military service – Thus, the burden of proving that the disease is not attributable to or aggravated by military service rests entirely on the employer – Any disease or disability for which a member of the armed forces is invalided out of service would have to be assumed to be above 20% and attract grant of 50% disability pension – Impugned orders of the tribunal wholly unsustainable in law and set aside – Respondents to grant the disability element of disability pension to the appellant at the rate of 50% with effect from 01.01.1996 onwards for life. [Paras 46, 47]

Keywords: Invalided from service · Generalized tonic clonic seizure old 345 V-67 · Invaliding Medical Board · Posting at high altitude glacier · Disability pension · Service element · Disability not attributable to or aggravated by military service · Re-Survey Medical Boards · Disability element · Army Group Insurance · Legal presumption that disease arose during service · Onus of proof on employer · Disability pension to armed forces personnel · Review application · Disability · Low medical category · Military service

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Judgment Ujjal Bhuyan, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Subject matter of both the civil appeals is the same. Therefore, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. However, for the sake of convenience, we refer to the facts mentioned in Civil Appeal No. 4458 of 2024. 2.1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 against the order dated 22.01.2018 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh Regional Bench in R.A. No. 20 of 2016 in O.A. No. 3977 of 2013 as well as the order dated 26.02.2016 passed by the Armed F
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →