Aggrieved by the order dated 28th July 2021 by which Constant Attendance Allowance was refused to him, Ex. Naik Kokate Bhagwan Maruti (hereinafter referred as "respondent") approached the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Mumbai by filing Original Application No.240 of 2021. He was also aggrieved by the decision dated 31 st March 2018 of Release Medical Board, Comd Hosp (NC) by which second disability of Fracture Proximal Humerus (RT)(OPTD) was held as NANA for life. In that context, he made a prayer for declaration to the effect that the Fracture Proximal Humerus (RT)(OPTD) was either attributable to or aggravated by military services.

2. Mr. Amarendra Mishra, the learned counsel for the Union of India referred to paragraph no.11 of the order dated 11 th April 2022 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal in Original Application No.240 of 2021 and submits that the Tribunal has completely misconstrued the stand taken by the respondent and clause 9.1 of the Government of India's letter dated 4 th 1/3 901-WP-6890-2025.doc Dixit ::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 23:12:12 ::: September 2017 was not at all applicable in the case of respondent. The learned counsel for the Union of India tenders a copy of the communication dated 26th December 2011 issued by the Ministry of Defence, Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare to submit that no ex-gratia compensation was payable for disability due to war injury less than 20%. According to the learned counsel, the proposed compensation is assessed on actual percentage of disability as certified by the Invalidating Medical Board, without applying broad banding provisions under paragraph 7.2 of the Ministry's letter dated 31st January 2001.

3. The stand taken by the Union of India before the Tribunal was that the respondent was discharged from service on 30th April 2018 in low medical category due to non-availability of shelter appointment in the Unit. The Release Medical Board assessed the disability of the respondent to the extent of (i) Pituitary Macroadenoma (OPTD)(D35.2) (NK) @ 80% for life attributable to military service and (ii) Fracture Proximal Humerus (RT)(OPTD) (S 42.2) (NK) @ 20% for life. However, the Medical Board did not consider the same attributable to or aggravated by the military service. The Tribunal referred to Rule 4 of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 which defines 'invalidation from service' in the following terms :

901-WP-6890-2025.doc Dixit ::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 23:12:12 :::

4. The Tribunal, therefore, having regard to the definition of "Invalidation" held that the respondent was in low medical category when he was enrolled and was discharged after more than 16 years and, therefore, it should be deemed as 'invalidation out of service'. The Tribunal referred to relevant provisions under the Government of India's letter dated 4th September 2017 as described under paragraph 9.1. Under the said paragraph, it was provided that the Defence service personnel who were boarded out of service on account of disability/war injury attributable to or aggravated by military service shall be paid Rs.20 lakhs for 100% disability subject to the provisions as stipulated in the Ministry's letter dated 26th December 2011. The Tribunal held that the respondent's composite disabilities were assessed to 90% for life which after rounding off comes to 100% as per the Government of India's letter dated 31st January 2001. Just to indicate, that the communication dated 26th December 2011 was issued also in the context of the Ministry's letter dated 31st January 2001 and the provisions under clause 9.1 of the Government of India's letter dated 4 th September 2017 was correctly applied by the Tribunal.

5. Therefore, we do not find any error in the order dated 11 th April 2022 whereby the Tribunal granted 100% disability pension to the respondent. This also needs to be indicated that the Tribunal was conscious of the limitations of the monetary claim raised by the respondent and, therefore, the same was restricted to three years preceding the date of filing of the Original Application.

6. In the aforementioned facts, Writ Petition No.6890 of 2025 is dismissed.