Rajasthan High Court grants invalid pension to ex-Army sepoy denied Release Medical Board before discharge

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that an ex-Army sepoy is entitled to disability/invalid pension under Regulations 197 and 198 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, ruling that the Army’s deliberate failure to conduct a Release Medical Board (RMB) before his discharge — despite his twice-documented history of Radial Nerve Palsy — amounted to malice and negligence, and that red ink entries alone could not bar entitlement to pension once earned.

A division bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal and Justice Ravi Chirania held that the mere award of five red ink entries cannot be treated as a “Laxman Rekha” disentitling a serviceman from invalid pension, and that where a disability arises during service and the soldier completes the minimum qualifying service of ten years, the entitlement to invalid pension under Regulation 198 stands established as a matter of right.

“Non-conducting of medical examination of petitioner through RMB by respondents, itself shows malice and negligence on their part. Further, non-mentioning of the medical history of petitioner in the discharge order, in the relevant column, further substantiates that the disease of petitioner was sought to be concealed/ hide, and was deliberately not disclosed by respondents, for the reasons best known to them,” the Court observed.

The petitioner, Om Prakash, an ex-Sepoy of the Army Service Corps, was enrolled on 13.06.1984 and discharged on 01.06.1995 under Rule 13(3), Item III(v) of the Army Rules, 1954, having served for 10 years, 11 months, and 18 days. The stated ground for discharge was that he was an “undesirable soldier” on account of five red ink entries (disciplinary punishments). During service, the petitioner had been hospitalized on two separate occasions — from 04.11.1993 to 12.11.1993 at the Army Hospital, Delhi Cantt., and from 10.12.1993 to 17.01.1994 at the Military Hospital, Jodhpur — where he was diagnosed with Radial Nerve Palsy (Right), a neurotic disorder. A day before his discharge, he was again admitted to hospital. Despite this documented medical history, no RMB was ever constituted, and the medical history column in the discharge order was left blank.

The petitioner challenged his discharge before the High Court in 2009 by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13230/2009, which was transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Jaipur Regional Bench, and registered as Transfer Application No. 113/2010. The AFT dismissed the original application on 16.08.2022 without separately addressing the petitioner’s alternative prayer for invalid pension. The present D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5477/2024 challenged that order.

Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Aslam Khan, argued that the four red ink entries awarded between January and December 1994 — precisely the period during which the petitioner was suffering from the neurotic disorder RNP (Rt) — could not be treated as deliberate or intentional acts warranting discharge, let alone a basis for denying invalid pension. He further urged that the respondents’ failure to subject the petitioner to an RMB before discharge, given his documented hospitalizations, disclosed an intention to conceal the true reason — his disability. He relied on Veerendra Kumar Dubey v. Chief of Army Staff [(2016) 2 SCC 627], followed in Vijay Shankar Mishra v. Union of India [(2017) 1 SCC 795] and Amarendra Kumar Pandey v. Union of India [(2024) 15 SCC 401], for the proposition that four red ink entries are not a mandatory ground for discharge.

Counsel for respondents, Mr. Gaurav Jain, contended that the petitioner’s discharge for repeated indiscipline was lawful, that the AFT had rightly affirmed it, and that the petitioner’s inordinate delay of 14 years in approaching the Court disentitled him from any relief. He placed reliance on C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining Indus. Est. [(2008) 10 SCC 115] and Union of India v. Ex. Sep. R. Munusami [AIR (2022) SC 3449].

The Court found that the AFT had committed manifest illegality and jurisdictional error by not separately considering the prayer for invalid pension. Critically, the AFT had applied the wrong standard — erroneously requiring 15 years’ qualifying service (the threshold for regular pension) rather than the 10-year minimum prescribed by Regulation 198 for invalid pension, which the petitioner had admittedly fulfilled. The Court noted that Radial Nerve Palsy was not detected at the time of enrolment and, having manifested during service, must be deemed attributable to and aggravated by military service. It further observed that four of the five red ink entries were awarded during 1994, when the petitioner was suffering from a neurotic disorder, raising a strong inference that the infractions were caused by his medical condition rather than deliberate misconduct.

On delay, the Court held that the denial of pension constitutes a continuing cause of action, and a vested entitlement to invalid pension earned at the time of discharge cannot be forfeited merely on account of a belated claim. Following the Supreme Court’s decisions in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh [(2008) 8 SCC 648] and Union of India v. SGT Girish Kumar [(2026) SCC OnLine SC 194], the Court restricted the arrears to three years prior to the filing of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13230/2009.

In doing so, the bench quoted para 19 of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dinesh Kumar Sharma (Civil Appeal No. 1080/2017, decided 20.03.2025): “This Court in various judgments has clearly held and settled that pension is not a charity, or a bounty, and an employee is entitled to receive his pension… where the claim relates to a continuing wrong, which does not affect the rights of third parties, equities can be balanced by restricting the arrears for the entitlement which a claimant is held to be eligible for.”

The Court also distinguished C. Jacob (supra), noting that unlike the petitioner in that case who had remained absent from service for twenty years without rendering qualifying service, Om Prakash had completed the requisite qualifying service and earned his entitlement to invalid pension at the very date of his discharge in 1995.

The writ petition was partly allowed. The impugned AFT order dated 16.08.2022 was quashed to the extent it declined Prayer No. (ii) for invalid pension. Respondents were directed to pay arrears of disability/invalid pension up to June 2026 within three months, with regular pension continuing from July 2026 onwards. Arrears paid belatedly shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of the order till actual payment. No order as to costs was made.

Title: Ex Sepoy Om Prakash v. Union of India & Ors.

Case No.: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5477/2024

Citation: [2026:RJ-JP:20716-DB]

Counsel for petitioner: Mr. Aslam Khan

Counsel for respondent: Mr. Gaurav Jain