Blog / Armed Forces & AFT

Invalided Out or Low Medical Category: Pension Rights

Armed Forces & AFT · By Adv. J. V. Bhosale · 10 November 2026

You fell ill in service, were placed in a lower medical category and then boarded out or discharged. Now the papers say "below 20%", or "not attributable", or you hear that with less than 10 years of service you get no invalid pension at all. Whether you are treated as "invalided out" is the hinge on which almost everything turns: it decides whether you can get disability pension (service element plus disability element), invalid pension, or only service pension. This article explains what the rules and the Supreme Court say, and where the law is still open.

The short answer Under the 2008 Entitlement Rules, a person boarded out on medical grounds before completing his terms of engagement "shall be treated as invalided from service", and some Low Medical Category discharges are "deemed" invalided out [1]. The Supreme Court has held that where a person is invalided out, the disability must be assumed to be above 20% and attracts 50% disability pension [3][4], and that a Medical Board opinion without reasons cannot support denial [5]. The 2023 Rules, in force from 21 September 2023, are narrower on who counts as invalided out [1][2], and no judgment located for this article says how the Supreme Court's earlier approach applies to them.

What the rule says

The 2008 Entitlement Rules, Rule 4 ("Invalidment from Service"). Three points matter [1]:

  • Invalidation with disablement caused by service factors is a condition precedent for disability pension. The disability element is also admissible to personnel who retire or are discharged on completion of terms of engagement in low medical category, where the disability is attributable to or aggravated by service and accepted as not less than 20% (Rule 4(a)).
  • A person boarded out on medical grounds before completion of terms of engagement "shall be treated as invalided from service" (Rule 4(b)).
  • Personnel below officer rank who are permanently placed in a category other than SHAPE 1 and are discharged because there is no suitable alternative employment, or they are unwilling to accept it, or they are discharged from alternative employment before completing engagement, "shall be deemed to have been invalided out of service" (Rule 4(c)).

The 2023 Entitlement Rules, Rule 5 ("Invaliding from Service"). These apply from 21.09.2023 [2]:

  • Invaliding out is a condition precedent for considering disability pension in Categories B and C (Rule 5(a)).
  • Invalid pension for Category A invalids is subject to 10 years' reckonable service, or being declared medically unfit for service both in the military and in civil life (Rule 5(c)).
  • Only those placed in SHAPE-5 and boarded out on the Invaliding Medical Board's recommendation before completing their terms are treated as invalided out (Rule 5(d)).
  • JCOs, Warrant Officers and other ranks in permanent low medical category, discharged because there is no alternative employment, or discharged before completion of engagement while in alternative employment, "shall be deemed to have been invalided out" (Rule 5(e)).
  • Retired officers not re-employed, and JCOs or other ranks not granted an extension for failing medical standards, "shall not be deemed to have been invalided" (Rule 5(f)).
  • For retired or discharged personnel the relief, now called "Impairment Relief", needs an assessment "not less than 20 per cent" (Rule 4(i)). A person retained in service despite disability falls under Rule 6, with a different relief [2].

The forum is the Armed Forces Tribunal under section 14 of the Act, which covers pension as a service matter [8]. See also our guide on invalidation and discharge.

What the courts have said

1. Sukhvinder Singh v. Union of India, Civil Appeal 5605/2010, Supreme Court, 25 June 2014. The Court held that a disability not recorded at recruitment is presumed to have been caused later, and, unless proved otherwise, to be a consequence of service. It found that there appeared to be "no provisions authorising the discharge or invaliding out of service where the disability is below twenty per cent". So "it perforce has to be assumed" that the disability was found to be above 20%, and a disability leading to invaliding out attracts fifty per cent disability pension (para 9) [3].

2. Bijender Singh v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 549, Supreme Court, 23 April 2025. The soldier was invalided out in 1989; the Invaliding Board said "not attributable" and below 20%, and Re-Survey Boards kept the assessment at 15-19%. The Tribunal had focused on the percentage rather than on attributability. The Supreme Court held that any disability for which a member is invalided out must be assumed to be above 20% and attracts 50% disability element, with the burden on the employer. It granted relief from 01.01.1996 with 6% interest (paras 11, 17, 46-47) [4].

3. Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 644, Supreme Court, 7 May 2025. A Medical Board must give reasons, under Regulation 423(d) (para 21). Discharge and denial of disability pension on an opinion with no reasons "will be unsustainable in law" (para 25). The case concerned a soldier discharged with schizophrenia. The Court held the discharge and the denial of disability pension on that opinion invalid (para 36), but, about 27 years after the invaliding, it did not disturb the discharge itself; it directed that disability pension be granted (paras 37-38) [5].

4. Union of India v. Sardari Lal, CA 8514/2022, Supreme Court, order of 13 May 2026. The Court declined to interfere with an AFT Srinagar order that treated a Low Medical Category discharge (Defence Security Corps) as deemed invalid under Regulation 179 of the 1961 Pension Regulations and granted disability pension with rounding off. It is a very short order, and the respondent had died (paras 3-5). It is an illustration only, not a statement of principle on deemed invalidment [6].

5. Union of India v. Col. N.C. Isaac (Retd.), 2026 INSC 993, 15 September 2026. The Court noted that this batch was confined to the disability element on retirement on completion of service, not to invalidment cases (para 4) [7].

How the two sets of rules compare

Question2008 Rules2023 Rules (from 21.09.2023)
Boarded out before completing engagement"Shall be treated as invalided" (r. 4(b)) [1]Treated as invalided out only if SHAPE-5 and IMB recommends (r. 5(d)) [2]
Permanent low category, no alternative job"Deemed" invalided out (r. 4(c)) [1]"Deemed" invalided out for JCOs, WOs and other ranks (r. 5(e)) [2]
Retiree with accepted disabilityDisability element if accepted as not less than 20% (r. 4(a)) [1]Impairment Relief if assessed not less than 20% (r. 4(i)) [2]
Officer or JCO refused extension on medical groundsNot addressed in the passages read"Shall not be deemed to have been invalided" (r. 5(f)) [2]

A worked example (hypothetical)

An invented illustration, not a real case. Sepoy A, with eight years of service, develops a seizure disorder, is placed in SHAPE-5 and is boarded out by an Invaliding Medical Board before completing his engagement. The Board writes "not attributable" and assesses 15%. He is told that with under 10 years of service he gets nothing.

Three separate questions arise. First, whether he is invalided out. Under the 2008 Rules, boarding out before completion of terms means he "shall be treated as invalided" [1]; under the 2023 Rules the SHAPE-5 and IMB conditions in Rule 5(d) must be met [2]. Second, the "below 20%" figure. On the older line, if he was invalided out the disability is assumed to be above 20% and the Court looked at attributability rather than percentage [3][4]. Third, the 10-year condition. Under the 2023 Rules, Rule 5(c) ties invalid pension for Category A invalids to 10 years' service or medical unfitness for civil service too [2]; disability pension for Categories B and C is considered on invaliding out (Rule 5(a)) [2]. Whether the Supreme Court's 20% presumption carries over to a post-2023 discharge is not settled. This example says nothing about how a Bench would decide.

Step by step: what to do

  1. Collect the records. Invaliding or Release Medical Board proceedings and the forms, medical category history, discharge order or release certificate, Pension Payment Order, and replies to appeals. Rajumon (paras 26-27) describes the parts of the Board form [5].
  2. Read the Board's reasoning. Is there a reasoned opinion, or only a conclusion [5]?
  3. Use the departmental appeals (two appeals are provided in the 2023 Rules) and note that the Act expects remedies to be used first [8][2].
  4. File the Original Application under section 14 in Form I, with the documents and fee prescribed, at the Bench where you ordinarily reside if you have left service (Rules 4, 6(2), 7, 9) [9].
  5. Mind the six-month limit from the final order, with condonation for sufficient cause on an application [8].
  6. Reliefs usually sought: setting aside the NANA finding or the reasonless Board opinion; a declaration that you were invalided out; 50% or higher disability pension; arrears and interest, as in Bijender (para 47) [4].

Common mistakes

  • Accepting "below 20%" as the end of the case when the person was in fact invalided out [3][4].
  • Not proving the conditions of Rule 5(d) of the 2023 Rules, namely SHAPE-5, an IMB recommendation and discharge before completing terms [2].
  • Assuming that refusal of an extension on medical grounds is "invalided out" for officers and JCOs; Rule 5(f) says it is not [2].
  • Waiting too long to claim. Rule 7 of the 2008 Rules says that "where the claim is preferred after 15 years of discharge/retirement/invalidment/release by which time the service documents of the claimant are destroyed after the prescribed retention period, the onus to prove the entitlement would lie on the claimant" [1]; see our article on NANA rejections.
  • Confusing "retention in service" (Rule 6) with invalidment [2].

What is still unsettled

  • The effect of the 2023 Rules on the "assume above 20%" approach, and on Low Medical Category retirees with disability below 20%; no judgment on this was located [2].
  • Whether deeming of Low Medical Category discharges, as in the Sardari Lal order, works outside Regulation 179 of the 1961 Pension Regulations or in other services [6].
  • How the "due weight" direction in Isaac fits with Bijender and Rajumon for invalided-out claims, since Isaac was confined to retirement cases [7][4][5].

Every case turns on its own facts, dates and records. You can read more on the Armed Forces Tribunal hub or ask Lex Buddy on this site.

Disclaimer: This article is for general education only and is not legal advice or an opinion on any individual case.

Frequently asked questions

What does "invalided out" mean and why does it matter?

A person boarded out on medical grounds before completing terms of engagement is treated as invalided from service under the 2008 Rules [1]. It matters because invaliding out is a condition precedent for considering disability pension [1][2]. Personnel who retire or are discharged on completing their engagement can still receive the disability element (now Impairment Relief) if the disability is accepted and assessed at not less than 20% [1][2].

My Board said below 20%. Do I get nothing?

The Supreme Court has said there appear to be no provisions allowing invaliding out where disability is below 20%, so the disability must be assumed to be above 20% and attracts 50% disability pension [3]. It repeated this in Bijender Singh, putting the burden on the employer [4]. Both cases predate the 2023 Rules; how this applies to a discharge under those Rules has not been settled [2].

Can I get invalid pension with less than 10 years of service?

Under the 2023 Rules, Category A invalids get invalid pension subject to 10 years' reckonable service or being declared medically unfit for service both in the military and in civil life [2]. No judgment on this point was located for this article.

I was discharged in Low Medical Category because no suitable job was available. Am I invalided out?

The 2008 Rules deem such personnel invalided out [1]. The 2023 Rules contain a similar deeming for JCOs, Warrant Officers and other ranks in permanent low medical category [2]. The Supreme Court left an AFT order treating such a discharge as deemed invalid undisturbed in a short order [6].

The Medical Board gave no reasons. Does that matter?

Yes. The Supreme Court has held that an opinion devoid of reasons cannot support discharge or denial of disability pension [5].

Does being retained in service count as invalidment?

No. The 2023 Rules treat retention separately in Rule 6, with a different relief [2].

What is the limitation for going to the Tribunal?

Ordinarily six months from the final order, with condonation for sufficient cause [8].

Related reading

Sources

  1. Entitlement Rules 2008 (Ministry of Defence) — MoD letter 18.01.2010 (appendix header 18.1.2009) (r. 4(a)-(c), r. 7 (PDF pp 2-3)) https://desw.gov.in/sites/default/files/ER-2008.pdf
  2. Entitlement Rules 2023 (Ministry of Defence) — MoD letter F.No. 16(3)/2023/D(Pen/Pol)/Vol-II, 21.09.2023 (r. 4(i) p.4; r. 5(a)-(f) pp 5-6; r. 6 p.6; r. 8(a) p.7) https://desw.gov.in/sites/default/files/Entitlement%20Rules%202023.pdf
  3. Sukhvinder Singh v. Union of India — CA 5605/2010, Supreme Court, 25 Jun 2014 (para 9) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91060800/
  4. Bijender Singh v. Union of India — 2025 INSC 549, Supreme Court, 23 Apr 2025 (paras 11, 17, 46-47) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/81878404/
  5. Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India — 2025 INSC 644, Supreme Court, 7 May 2025 (paras 21, 25-27, 36-38) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/4938003/
  6. Union of India v. Sardari Lal — CA 8514/2022, Supreme Court, order 13 May 2026 (reported in batch) (paras 3-5) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/118799964/
  7. Union of India v. Col. N.C. Isaac (Retd.) — 2026 INSC 993, Supreme Court, 15 Sep 2026 (para 4) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/3188903/
  8. Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 — Act 55 of 2007 (ss. 3(o)(i), 14, 21, 22) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/50690063/
  9. Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2008 — Rules 4, 6, 7, 9 (rr. 4, 6(2), 7, 9) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/121103332/

Comments