Pension Is a Vested Right, Not Government's Bounty: Bombay High Court Upholds Disability Pension to Armed Forces Personnel

Disability pension is payable where an officer is invalided out due to a disability attributable to or aggravated by military service in non-battle cases, with disability assessed at 20% or more. It may also be granted to personnel in a low medical category retiring on superannuation/tenure completion if suffering from such service-linked disability at retirement. The cases involved conditions such as primary hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, obesity, bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, ankylosing spondylitis, ulcerative colitis, retinal vasculitis, chronic myeloid leukemia, panic disorder, etc. The Tribunal held these were caused or aggravated by service and rounded off the disability element to 50% or more, for life or a fixed term.

A bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad observed, “The military personnel who is unable to perform his duty and invalided out from service on medical ground deserves grant of pension. We do not think that the rule makers intended to deprive the military personnel of the benefit of the disability pension on the ground of delay or constitutional disorder or disease even if such invaliding diseases occurred while in military service. This is not correct to say that the onus to prove that the disability occurred on account of military service has shifted to the military personnel. For example, it would be absolutely impossible for a military personnel to prove that he suffers from hypertension on account of rigours of the duty in military service. Just to indicate, hypertension is a notified disease which is recognized by the Army and Navy a disease which entitles the military personnel to seek disability pension”.

“…Except some cosmetic changes, there is no change in the statutory regime under the Pension Entitlement Rules-2008 or the Navy Regulations for grant of disability pension to the military personnel. The decision of the Tribunal is not liable to interference on showing some mistakes committed by it in the process of adjudication. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may interfere with the decision of an inferior Tribunal where it is demonstrated that the Tribunal passed an order ignoring the material and relevant facts or considered such irrelevant materials which rendered its decision perverse…”, the bench further observed.

Amarendra Mishra, Senior Panel Counsel appeared for the petitioner, and Advocate Sagar. S. Ambedkar appeared for the respondent.

The batch of 70 writ petitions challenged the orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Mumbai in the Original Applications filed by the military personnel of the Army and Navy who have been granted disability pension by the Tribunal.

In the orders under challenge, the disease or disability pertained to primary hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, symptomatic dyslipidemia, V. P. S., obesity, bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, neurilemmoma, ankylosing spondylitis, ulcerative colitis, retinal vasculitis, chronic myeloid leukemia, panic disorder etc.

Under the governing rules, disability pension, comprising a service element and a disability element is payable where the disability is found to be attributable to or aggravated by military service. The AFT had concluded that the service conditions contributed to or worsened the medical conditions of the personnel concerned. It also directed that the disability element be rounded off to 50% or higher, either for life or for a specified period, depending on the case.

The Union argued that under the Pension Entitlement Rules, 2008, disability pension for disease cases requires a proven causal nexus between military service and the onset or aggravation of the condition. It contended that the Tribunal erred in law by presuming service connection merely because the disease manifested during service, particularly when Rule 5 expressly excludes lifestyle and constitutional diseases from such presumptions.

Further it was argued that conditions such as diabetes, primary hypertension and obesity are influenced by individual predisposition and lifestyle factors, especially when detected at peace stations.

The respondents, however, argued that prolonged exposure to stress, harsh climates, field postings and operational pressures materially aggravated their medical conditions. They contended that branding diseases as “constitutional” cannot automatically defeat disability pension claims when service conditions contribute to deterioration of health.

By upholding the AFT’s view, the High Court reinforced the principle that the benefit of doubt in attributability and aggravation must lean in favour of service personnel, particularly where prolonged and strenuous military service forms part of the factual matrix. The ruling strengthens judicial recognition that not only battlefield injuries but also service-induced or service-aggravated diseases can found a valid claim to disability pension.

Cause Title: Union of India v. Lt. Col. S.K. Rathore Deceased, through his widow Collen. Rathore [Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:3699-DB]

Appearances:

Petitioners: Amarendra Mishra, Sagar Batvia, Niranjan Shimpi, Satendra Kumar a/w Mr.Akshay Patil, Advocates.

Respondents: Sagar. S. Ambedkar a/w Ms.Disha Nidre, H.S.Verma, Ranjeet Kumar Singh, Dayashankar Pasi, Advocates.