Rajasthan HC Grants Invalid Pension to Ex-Sepoy Discharged Without Medical Board, Finds Army Concealed Disease in Service Record
The Rajasthan High Court held that an ex-Sepoy with Radial Nerve Palsy was entitled to invalid pension under Army Pension Regulations, after the Army discharged him without conducting a Release Medical Board and left the medical history column in his discharge order blank.
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, comprising Justice Sudesh Bansal and Justice Ravi Chirania, on 8 June 2026 partly allowed a writ petition filed by ex-Sepoy Om Prakash, a former soldier of the Army Service Corps, and declared him entitled to disability/invalid pension under Regulations 197 and 198 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961. The court found that the Army had discharged Om Prakash on 1 June 1995 without subjecting him to a Release Medical Board, despite his having been hospitalised twice with a diagnosed neurotic disorder, and had left the medical history column in his discharge order blank. The Armed Forces Tribunal had dismissed his original application in its entirety in 2022. The High Court set aside that dismissal to the extent it declined invalid pension, and directed payment of arrears within three months with interest at 6% per annum for any delay.
From Enrolment to Discharge: The Factual Background
Om Prakash was enrolled in the Army Service Corps on 13 June 1984. He served for 10 years, 11 months and 18 days before being discharged on 1 June 1995 under Rule 13(3), Item III(v) of the Army Rules, 1954, on the ground that he was an undesirable soldier, having accumulated five red ink entries for disciplinary infractions.
During his service, Om Prakash was hospitalised twice on account of Radial Nerve Palsy (Right) — a neurotic disorder — first at the Army Hospital, Delhi Cantt., from 4 November 1993 to 12 November 1993, and then at the Military Hospital, Jodhpur, from 10 December 1993 to 17 January 1994. Both discharge slips, which formed part of the undisputed record, recorded the diagnosis. He was again admitted to hospital on 31 May 1995, the day before his discharge order was issued.
Despite this medical history, the Army did not conduct a Release Medical Board before discharging him. The discharge order itself left the column pertaining to his medical history blank. Om Prakash was not awarded any disability pension or invalid pension at the time of discharge.
He challenged the discharge order by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13230/2009 before the High Court, seeking, among other reliefs, quashing of the discharge order, constitution of a Medical Board, and grant of invalid pension. The High Court transferred the matter to the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Jaipur, where it was registered as Transfer Application No. 113/2010. The AFT, after hearing both sides, dismissed the original application in its entirety by order dated 16 August 2022. Om Prakash then filed D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5477/2024 before the High Court.
The Issue Before the High Court
By the time the matter was argued before the Division Bench, counsel for Om Prakash had confined the prayer to a single question: whether the petitioner was eligible and entitled to disability/invalid pension under Regulations 197 and 198 of the Army Pension Regulations, and if so, from which date. The prayer to quash the discharge order was not pressed.
Regulation 197 provides that invalid pension or gratuity is admissible to an individual who is invalided out of service on account of a disability that is neither attributable to nor aggravated by service (clause a), or where the disability is attributable to or aggravated by service but assessed at less than 20% (clause b), or where the individual is placed in a low medical category and discharged for lack of compatible employment (clause c). Regulation 198 sets the minimum qualifying service for invalid pension at 10 years; for less than 10 years, only invalid gratuity is admissible.
The respondents — the Union of India, the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions), and the OIC Records (South) — supported the AFT's order. They argued that Om Prakash had been rightly discharged after being served a show cause notice, that he had approached the court after a gross delay of about 14 years from the date of discharge, and that the AFT had committed no error.
How the Bench Reasoned
Justice Ravi Chirania, writing for the bench, identified several undisputed facts that the AFT had failed to weigh when dismissing the application as a whole.
First, the diagnosis of Radial Nerve Palsy (Right) was recorded in both hospital discharge slips and was not in dispute. The disease had not been detected at the time of Om Prakash's enrolment in 1984; it was diagnosed after more than eight to nine years of service. Under the applicable rules, the bench held, a disability arising during service is deemed attributable to and aggravated by military service.
Second, the Army had produced no explanation for not conducting a Release Medical Board before the discharge, even though Om Prakash had been hospitalised twice with the same diagnosed condition and was again admitted to hospital the day before his discharge. The bench found that the non-conduct of the RMB, on the face of the record, showed malice and negligence on the part of the respondents.
Third, the medical history column in the discharge order had been left blank. The bench found that this deliberate omission was an attempt to conceal the disease and the true reason for discharge.
On the five red ink entries, the bench observed that four of the five punishments were awarded between 24 January 1994 and 1 December 1994 — precisely the period during which Om Prakash was suffering from a neurotic disorder. The bench drew the inference that the disciplinary infractions during that period were primarily attributable to the neurotic condition and were not intentional or deliberate. It relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Veerendra Kumar Dubey v. Chief of Army Staff [(2016) 2 SCC 627], which held that four red ink entries are not a “Lakshman Rekha” mandating discharge, but merely place the individual in a zone of consideration. That ratio had been followed in Vijay Shankar Mishra v. Union of India [(2017) 1 SCC 795] and reaffirmed in Amarendra Kumar Pandey v. Union of India [(2024) 15 SCC 401].
The bench held that the AFT had committed manifest illegality and jurisdictional error by not considering the prayer for invalid pension at all, even after declining to interfere with the discharge order. The AFT had, erroneously, entered into the question of regular pensionary benefits, which require 15 years of qualifying service, rather than invalid pension, which requires only 10 years. Om Prakash had admittedly completed more than 10 years of qualifying service.
On the beneficial nature of the provisions, the bench observed that Regulations 197 and 198 are part of a beneficial scheme intended to provide relief to servicemen discharged after serving the nation. A liberal approach must be adopted while construing such provisions. The bench cited the Supreme Court's recent observation in Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India [AIR (2025) SC 2804] that “a much more liberal view ought to be adopted while dealing with the cases of discharge of servicemen.”
The respondents' reliance on C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining [(2008) 10 SCC 115] to urge that the claim was stale was rejected. The bench distinguished that case on facts: the employee there had remained unauthorisedly absent for twenty years and had not rendered qualifying service. In the present case, Om Prakash had completed qualifying service, had suffered a disability during service, and the denial of pension constituted a continuing cause of action. Similarly, Union of India v. Ex. Sep. R. Munusami [AIR (2022) SC 3449] was distinguished because in that case the disease was neither attributable to nor aggravated by service, and the disability had been assessed at 20% for only two years.
The Date from Which Invalid Pension Is Payable
Having found Om Prakash entitled to invalid pension, the bench turned to the question of the start date. His entitlement had technically arisen on the date of his discharge, 1 June 1995, but he had first put forth his claim only in 2009 by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13230/2009.
The bench applied the principle settled by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh [(2008) 8 SCC 648] and recently followed in Union of India v. SGT Girish Kumar [(2026) SCC OnLine SC 194], that in delayed claims for disability pension, arrears should be restricted to three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. The same approach was affirmed in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dinesh Kumar Sharma (Civil Appeal No. 1080/2017, decided 20 March 2025), where the Supreme Court held that where a claim relates to a continuing wrong not affecting third-party rights, equities can be balanced by restricting arrears to three years before the writ petition.
Applying this, the bench held that Om Prakash is entitled to invalid pension with effect from the date three years prior to the filing of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13230/2009.
Order
The Division Bench partly allowed D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5477/2024. It declared Om Prakash eligible and entitled to disability/invalid pension under Regulations 197 and 198 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, with effect from the date three years prior to the filing of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13230/2009.
The impugned order of the AFT dated 16 August 2022, to the extent it dismissed the prayer for invalid pension (Prayer No. ii), was quashed and set aside.
The respondents were directed to pay arrears of disability/invalid pension due up to June 2026 within three months from the date of the order. From July 2026 onwards, invalid pension is to be paid regularly. Any delay in payment of arrears will carry interest at 6% per annum for the delayed period, reckoned from the date of the order until actual payment. No order as to costs was made.