Disability Pension| Courts Must Be Guided By Opinion Of Medical Board To Draw Conclusion If Disease Has Any Connection With Military Service: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court while granting Disability Pension to a person, emphasised that the Courts must be guided by the opinion of Medical Board to draw conclusion if a disease has any connection with the military service or not.

The Court was deciding a Writ Petition filed by a person who was serving as an Uttam Navik (ME) in the Indian Coast Guard, seeking Disability Pension rounded off to 75% with effect from his date of discharge and to pay the arrears with an interest @ 12% per annum from the date of his discharge with all consequential benefits.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur observed, “… the Courts are to be guided by the opinion given by the Medical Board to draw a conclusion as to whether a disease has any connection with the military service or not, as the Medical Board bases its assessment on the medical investigations and the clinical profile of an individual. However, before the findings of these experts can be relied upon by the Courts, it must be ensured that justifiable reasons have been recorded in support of medical opinions, else such opinions may be amenable to challenge.”

Advocate Ved Prakash appeared on behalf of the Petitioner while Advocate Vikrant N. Goyal appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

Factual Background -

The Petitioner joined the Indian Coast Guard in 2002 and thereafter served as an Uttam Navik. While being in active service, he suffered from two disabilities, “Recurrent Depressive Disorder ICD No. F 33.1” (first disability) and “PIVD L4L5 ICD No. M 51.9” (second disability). He had developed his disabilities in 2006 and 2009. The Medical Board in 2013, assessed the Petitioner’s first disability at 40% for life, being neither attributable to nor aggravated by service and the second disability at 20% for life, conceding it to be attributable to service. The Composite Assessment for both the disabilities was assessed at 50% for life and the Medical Board, thus, recommended that the Petitioner is entitled for Disability Pension, on the basis of his second disability. Thereupon, the Petitioner, after having rendered more than 11 years of service, was in 2013, invalidated out of service in the Low Medical Category under Rule 26 of the Coast Guard (General) Rules, 1986.

However, the Pension Sanctioning Authority, vide Pension Payment Order (PPO), only granted Invalid Pension as per Rule 38 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. It was the Petitioner’s case that he was also eligible for Disability Pension as opined by the Medical Board, in addition to the Invalid Pension as per Rule 9(3A) of Central Civil Services (Extra-Ordinary Pension), [“CCS (EOP) Rules”]. The Petitioner in this regard, wrote a letter enquiring from the Respondents about the grant of Disability Pension. Thereupon, the Respondents vide a Bureau of Naviks’ letter, reiterated their stand and informed that he would only be granted Invalid Pension. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner sent a legal notice-cum-representation for grant of Disability Pension duly rounded off to 75%. As his claim was rejected by the Coast Guard, he approached the High Court.

The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “… it is evident that for the major part of his service, the petitioner was posted in the Coast Guard ships. It is not disputed that the petitioner was posted in a Hard Area with effect from 01.12.2003 to 18.03.2007 as during this time he served onboard Coast Guard ships in Port Blair.”

The Court said that both disabilities of the Petitioner have arisen while he was in active service and therefore, possibility cannot be ruled out, with respect to the first disability, that his suffering from stress and strain emerged due to his service conditions thereby resulting in his disability specifically, when the Classified Specialist has opined that he had no history suggestive of mood disorder in the past or in immediate relations.

“He even did not face any marital stress. Moreover, his second disability was found to be attributable to his service condition, even though, he had been discharged on account of the first disability”, it added.

Furthermore, the Court took note of the fact that the Medical Board categorically recommended the case of the Petitioner for Disability Pension as he had suffered 20% lifelong disability for the second disability.

“No cogent reasons have been assigned for not having considered the opinion of the Medical Board for not granting the disability element of pension to the petitioner. It appears that the respondents have only granted Invalid Pension to the petitioner in a mechanical manner without considering the opinion of their own Medical Board which recommended Disability Pension to the petitioner and the respondents simply brushed aside the findings given by the Medical Board”, it observed.

The Court said that in absence of any cogent reasons shown by the Respondents for not concluding that the first disability was attributable to service, it would emerge that the they presumed that the Petitioner’s first disability was not due to service.

“The respondents, thus, have miserably failed to discharge the onus of proof that was on them to prove the condition for non-entitlement of the Disability Pension to the petitioner. … the petitioner was not suffering from either of the two medical conditions at the time of his being commissioned into the service, therefore, there arises no difficulty in taking a view that the first medical condition, that is, Recurrent Depressive Disorder can also be clearly held to be attributable to the service condition. Thus, both the disabilities of the petitioner are held to be attributable to the service”, it also observed.

The Court, therefore, concluded that since the disability is not more than 50%, it cannot be rounded off to 75% as claimed by the Petitioner. Hence, it directed the Respondents to grant Disability Pension to the Petitioner with an interest @ 8% per annum, by taking his two disabilities at 50% and release pensionary benefits to him within a period of two months.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition to an extent.

Cause Title- Ex U/Nvk (ME) Pravindera Sharma v. Union of India and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:9374-DB)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Ved Prakash

Respondents: Advocates Vikrant N. Goyal, Arpit Kumar, and Aditya Shukla.

Click here to read/download the Judgment