10.02.2026 Item No.18 Ct. No.1 KS WP.CT 44 of 2024 Meher Mallick Vs. Union of India & Ors. Mr. Aniruddha Datta …..For the Petitioner Ms. Anamika Pandey …..For the U.O.I. PER, SUJOY PAUL, CJ.: 1. Parties are represented through their respective learned counsels. 2. Heard on admission. 3. This petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India assails the orders of Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kolkata passed in O.A. No.18/15 and rejection of review application R.A. No.6/2018 decided on 21.11.2023. 4. In nutshell, petitioner’s case was for grant of disability pension. As per the stand of learned counsel for petitioner, the petitioner rendered 172 days of service with the respondent/Department. The Medical Board gave an incorrect opinion and aggrieved by that, he approached the said Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the main finding of the Tribunal are in paragraph nos.4 and 5 and these findings are incorrect because the 2 respondent/Department has not filed the medical documents and other relevant documents alongwith their affidavit-in-opposition. 6. In this view of the matter, he submits that the nature of ailment petitioner had, could have taken place because of rendering service with the respondent/Department. 7. Learned counsel for respondents opposed the same. 8. We have heard the parties at length. 9. The learned Tribunal has recorded its finding:- “4. We have perused all the medical documents and attached enclosure. The Summary and opinion of Lt Col KE Rajan, Classified Specialist (Medicine and Chest Physician) of MH (CTC), Pune 40, dt 28.08.1994 is reproduced below:- "This Rect aged 19 yrs, having 3 week of trg to his credit presented to MH Panaji with features of cough, haemoptysis and weight loss of 5 kg. Chest was clear on admission to MH (CTC). ESR was 10 mm fall. Mantoux - 13 mm. Sputum AFB smear positive. Chest X-Ray showed scion nodular shadows LMZ/LUZ. He was placed on 2 SHRZ/HR regimen wef 13 Aug 94. He is tolerating drugs well. MTB culture report awaited. The individual has shown partial improvement in that he has become asymptomatic. Gained 5 kg weight. Chest is clear. Sputum AFT still positive. Chest X-Ray-No changes. A case of Pulmonary Tuberculosis, clinically, radiographically and bacteriologically. Being a rect he is rec to be invalided of service in Cat "ΕΕΕ" for "PULMONARY TUBERCULOSIS". He will require a period sanitorum treatment, duration of which will depend on his response. Advised - Xxxxxxx - Xxxxxxx - Xxxxxxx - Xxxxxxx - Xxxxxxx Sd/-zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz (K. E. Rajan) Lt Col CI. Spl. (Med) Chest Physician In view of the above the indl is brought before the medical board. 3 Sd/-z z z z z z z z z z z z z z (RAVI KALRA) Surgeon Lieutenant Commander INDIAN NAVY 5. As is in the opinion of the Medical Board (Part III), where it has been specifically stated that "Indl got disease prior to entry in service and hence not connected with service" coupled the fact that it was detected within 3 weeks of his reporting for training and that it was classified as 'Not Attributable Nor Aggravated by Military Service', his claim for Disability Pension was rightly rejected by the PCDA (P), Allahabad.” 10. Plain reading of the aforesaid finding makes it clear that learned Tribunal has perused the medical documents and attached enclosures. After having perused and reproducing same portion of said opinion, learned Tribunal came to hold that the Medical Board (Part III) clearly opined that the petitioner got diseased prior to entry in service and it was not connected with service. 11. On a specific query from the Bench as to whether petitioner raised any objection on the correctness/genuineness and existence of such medical reports while filing rejoinder before the Tribunal, learned counsel for petitioner fairly submits that rejoinder is very sketchy and did not deal with this aspect. 12. In this view of the matter, we find no reason to disagree with the medical opinion, which was considered and accepted by the Tribunal. This is trite that the Courts cannot substitute its view 4 against the view of the expert bodies/medical boards etc. unless Wednesbury Principles are attracted. In the instant case, as already noticed above, the petitioner could not establish with accuracy and precision the illegality in the reports of medical board, were not reliable or perverse in nature. 13. Thus, no fault can be found in the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal accepting the report of the Medical Board. The petitioner served the Department for a very brief period. He could not establish with utmost clarity that ailment so suffered by him, is arising out of or aggravated by Military Service. 14. Thus, admission is declined and petition is dismissed. 15. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal formalities. (SUJOY PAUL, CJ.) (PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)