2025:KER:29535 W.P.(C).No.35541 of 2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 35541 OF 2024 PETITIONERS: 1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110011. 2 THE CHIEF OF THE NAVAL STAFF INTEGRATED HEAD QUARTERS, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (NAVY) SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110011. 3 THE COMMODORE BUREAU OF SAILORS CHEETAH CAMP MANKHURD, MUMBAI, PIN – 400088. 4 THE PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS NAVY (PENSION) POST BOX NO.589 NO.1 COOPERATE ROAD, MUMBAI, PIN – 400039. BY ADV HARI KUMAR G. NAIR, SCGC RESPONDENT: P.U. THOMAS (EX NO.91495 ERA IV) AGED 73 YEARS OF INDIAN NAVY, S/O LATE P.C UTHUP PANAMPERIL HOUSE, PH WARD ALAPPUZHA DIST, KERALA, PIN – 688007. BY ADVS. T R JAGADEESH ADI NARAYANAN(K/000889/2024) V.A.VINOD(K/750/2006) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:29535 W.P.(C).No.35541 of 2024 2 NITIN JAMDAR, C.J. & S.MANU, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.35541 of 2024 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 04th day of April, 2025 JUDGMENT S.MANU, J. Respondents in O.A.No.398/2017 of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 24 May 2022 of the Tribunal by which the O.A. was allowed. 2. The Respondent, an Ex Engine Room Artificer in Indian Navy approached the Tribunal aggrieved by refusal to grant disability pension. According to him, he was perfectly healthy and no disease was noticed at the time of joining service and he was discharged from service with effect from 27 October 1978 due to low medical category. His health condition 'Neurosis Depressive Reaction' was assessed by the Release Medical Board with 50% disability. But he was wrongly 2025:KER:29535 W.P.(C).No.35541 of 2024 3 denied disability pension on the premise that the disability was not attributable to or aggravated by service in Navy. Petitioners contended that the Respondent was discharged as he was found unsuitable for work and not for medical reasons. The Petitioners therefore contended before the Tribunal that the Respondent was not eligible for the benefit of disability pension as the discharge was on account of he being unsuitable for work. So also the disability not being one aggravated or arising out of service as opined by the Medical Board, in any view, the Respondent was not eligible to claim disability pension. 3. The learned Tribunal rejected the contentions of the Petitioners and allowed the O.A. by directing the Petitioners to grant disability pension to the Respondent at 50% for 24 weeks from the date of discharge and to pay the arrears within 4 months failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate of 9%. 4. The learned Senior Central Government Counsel contended that the Tribunal went wrong in disagreeing with the view of the experts body, the Release Medical Board. He also contended that the Respondent was discharged as unsuitable for service and hence he was not entitled for disability pension. The learned counsel for the 2025:KER:29535 W.P.(C).No.35541 of 2024 4 Respondent on the other hand contended that the order passed by the Tribunal needs no interference as the learned Tribunal has appreciated the contentions in a proper perspective and granted the reliefs. 5. In Union of India and others v. Bhaskaran.N.1 precedents and principles regarding scope of interference with expert opinion by Medical Boards was considered. Though a part of the discussion in the judgment was on the basis of Regulations of the Army, Entitlement Rules governing granting of disability pension are common for Army, Navy and Air Force. Principles discussed and summarized in the judgment regarding scope of judicial review on decisions taken relying on expert opinion would govern substantially the dispute involved in this case also. The learned SCGC as well as the learned counsel for the Respondent agreed that in the light of the principles summarized in Union of India and others v. Bhaskaran.N it will be appropriate to remit the matter for fresh consideration by the learned Tribunal. The learned SCGC prayed that the dispute regarding the nature of discharge of the Respondent may also be left open as it is a formidable contention. 1[2024 KLT OnLine 2868] 2025:KER:29535 W.P.(C).No.35541 of 2024 5 6. In view of the above, we set aside the order dated 24 May 2022 in O.A.No.398/2017 of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi. The O.A. is remitted for fresh consideration by the learned Tribunal in the light of the discussions and principles summarized in Union of India and others v. Bhaskaran.N. The dispute regarding the nature of discharge of the Respondent is left open. The parties shall be free to amend the pleadings if required. The learned Tribunal may make endeavour to dispose the matter as early as possible. 7. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- NITIN JAMDAR CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- S.MANU JUDGE skj 2025:KER:29535 W.P.(C).No.35541 of 2024 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35541/2024 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS Exhibit P 1 A TRUE COPY OF O.A.NO.398 OF 2017 FILED BEFORE THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH AT KOCHI Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT IN O.A.No.398 OF 2017 BEFORE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH AT KOCHI Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 24.05.2022 IN O.A.NO.398 OF 2017 OF ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH AT KOCHI Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22.09.2023 IN M.A. NO. 624 OF 2023 IN O.A.NO.398 OF 2017 OF THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH AT KOCHI