✦ Supreme Court of India · 07 May 2025

Rajumon T.M v. Union of India & Ors.

Civil Appeal No. 998 of 2025ABHAY S OKA, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH41 min read

Case at a glance

Outcome

Allowed

For the reasons discussed above, the appeal stands allowed

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 33. The appellant, Rajumon T.M. No.13978552W was enrolled in the Indian Army on 17.11.1988 as a sepoy and after serving more than 9 (nine) years he was discharged from service on being diagnosed with Schizophrenia. His discharge on medical invalidation was based on the opinion…

Judgment

Advs. for the Respondents: Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G., Shashank Bajpai, Shyam Gopal, Ms. Rekha Pandey, Chinmayee Chandra, Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Kartik Dey, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Akshat Kaushik. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and final order dated 17.01.2013 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi in OA No.100 of 2011 by which the claim of the appellant for grant of disabilities pension was denied to the appellant.

2.

Only the relevant facts in brief for the purpose of deciding this appeal may be adverted to.

3.

The appellant, Rajumon T.M. No.13978552W was enrolled in the Indian Army on 17.11.1988 as a sepoy and after serving more than 9 (nine) years he was discharged from service on being diagnosed with Schizophrenia. His discharge on medical invalidation was based on the opinion of the Invalidating Medical Board held on 30 March, 1998 at the Command Hospital, Western Command, Chandimandir which found that the onset of the invalidating disease was in August 1993 during which period the appellant had served in a peace station and that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service and the said disease of the appellant was constitutional in nature and not connected with the service. The disability was assessed at 30 percent for two years. Accordingly, the appellant’s Supreme Court Reports [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1283 claim for disability pension was rejected by the CCDA (Pension), Allahabad vide letter dated 04.01.1999 which was communicated to the appellant by the AMC Records vide letter dated 15.01.1999.

4.

The said rejection was challenged before the first appellate committee which was dismissed. The appellant, thereafter, made an unsuccessful attempt for redressal of his grievances through a Member of the Parliament. The appellant was informed by the Ministry of Defence vide communication dated 07.11.2009 that the matter had already been considered and his appeal against rejection of disability pension claim was turned down earlier by the competent authority. He was also informed that he had not preferred the second appeal after his first appeal was dismissed.

5.

Being aggrieved by the rejection of his claim for disability pension, the appellant unsuccessfully approached the Armed Forces Tribunal, Original Bench at Kochi in OA No.100 of 2011 which was heard with other applicants seeking similar reliefs.

6.

Before the Armed Forces Tribunal it was pleaded by the appellant that he had been found medically fit at the time of enrolment and nothing adverse was noted at that point of time and the appellant became afflicted with the said disease during his service which had nothing to do with the family conditions and since the said disease developed in course of his service, he was entitled to the disability pension.

7.

The respondents contested the claim of the appellant before the Armed Forces Tribunal by contending that the appellant had been posted at peace station at the time of onset of the disease and being deployed in peace stations, and it could not have contributed to the said illness nor can the service said to have aggravated the disease, which was confirmed by the Medical Board on examination of the appellant as mentioned above. Further, it was contended that nothing was brought on record to contradict the finding of the Medical Board and as such the claim of the appellant could not be entertained.

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: For the reasons discussed above, the appeal stands allowed

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Supreme Court of India, on 07 May 2025. The bench was ABHAY S OKA, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Supreme Court of India or eCourts case status (search case no. Civil Appeal No. 998 of 2025). ← Search more judgments