Rajendran P.'s petition dismissed due to lack of evidence linking disability to military service
The Kerala High Court, in a judgment delivered on February 4, 2026, has dismissed the writ petition filed by Rajendran P. seeking disability pension for 'Generalised Anxiety Disorder.' The decision reinforces the findings of the Re-assessment Medical Board and the Armed Forces Tribunal, which concluded that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.
The petitioner, Rajendran P., initially enrolled in the army on September 29, 1969, and was invalided out of service on November 13, 1976, due to a low medical category. A disability pension claim was filed, citing 'Neurosis' with a 30% disability assessment for two years. However, this claim was rejected as the disability was not considered linked to military service.
Following an unsuccessful application in 2013 with the Armed Forces Tribunal, Rajendran P. pursued a re-assessment by the Medical Board, which identified a new condition, 'Generalised Anxiety Disorder,' with a 40% lifelong disability assessment. Despite this, the claim was denied, as the Re-assessment Medical Board did not find any evidence connecting the condition to military service.
The High Court's judgment, delivered by Justices K. Natarajan and Johnson John, emphasized the importance of respecting the medical board's opinions, which did not attribute the condition to military service. The court also highlighted the significant delay of over 39 years from the date of discharge, which undermined the validity of the claim.
The court referred to multiple Supreme Court cases, including Union of India v. Keshar Singh and Om Prakash Singh v. Union of India, underscoring that medical board opinions must be respected and cannot be lightly dismissed. The judgment reiterated that, in the absence of denial of fundamental rights or jurisdictional errors, the High Court cannot interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Rajendran P.'s counsel argued the presumptions under the Armed Forces Tribunal Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982, suggesting that service members are presumed to be in sound health upon joining, and any deterioration should be attributed to military service. However, the court found no basis for these presumptions due to the medical board's findings.
Ultimately, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the writ petition and concluding that there was no denial of fundamental rights or jurisdictional errors in the case.
Bottom Line:
Disability pension claim - Re-assessment Medical Board findings do not indicate that the disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service - Fundamental right denial or jurisdictional error not established - High Court cannot interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Armed Forces Tribunal Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 (Rules 5, 9, and 14)
Rajendran P. v. Union of India, (Kerala)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2849331
