Disability Pension Cannot Be Denied Without Establishing Causal Connection Between Ailment And Non-Military Cause: Delhi High Court
The High Court held that the pension cannot be rejected merely on assumptions when neither the Release Medical Board nor the specialist’s opinion establishes any causal connection of the ailment with factors other than military service.
Justice C Hari Shankar, Justice Om Prakash Shukla, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court set aside an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal, which had denied disability pension to a retired Nursing Officer of the Army, observing that the benefit cannot be denied based on assumptions without establishing a causal connection between the ailment and a non-military cause.
The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging an order passed by the AFT, which had dismissed the petitioner’s claim for disability pension on the ground that her hypertension was attributable to obesity.
A Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, while adjudicating the matter, observed: “It is for the medical board to ascertain and identify the cause, other than military service, to which the ailment or disability can be attributed. If no such causal connection is found to exist by the medical board, or even by the specialist who has examined the candidate, the plea for disability pension cannot be rejected.”
Advocate A.K. Trivedi appeared for the petitioner, while Advocate Satya Ranjan Swain, SPC, appeared for the respondents.
Background
The petitioner had joined the Army as a regular Nursing Officer in 1969 and retired in July 2006 after serving for more than 36 years. At the time of her release, she was placed in a low medical category with disabilities assessed at 1-5% for obesity and 30% for hypertension. She then applied for disability pension, which was denied, leading her to approach the AFT.
The AFT, however, dismissed her claim, holding that her hypertension was attributable to her obesity, which was deemed her personal failure to control her weight despite medical advice.
Aggrieved by the AFT’s order, she filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court.
Court’s Observations
The Delhi High Court examined the principles governing disability pension laid down by the Apex Court in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India, Bijender Singh v. Union of India, and by the Delhi High Court in Union of India v. Balbir Singh and Gawas Anil Madso v. Union of India.
Applying the standards to the case at hand, the Bench noted that the Release Medical Board had merely recorded “no causal connection with service” without any reasoning, and the specialist’s report also did not establish that hypertension was attributable to obesity or any other non-service factor.
The Bench held that the Tribunal erred in drawing its own inference of causality when neither the RMB nor the specialist who examined the petitioner had recorded such a finding. While making these observations, the Court observed that, “...every obese person does not suffer from hypertension, and every person who suffers from hypertension is not necessarily obese.”
Accordingly, the Court ruled that the petitioner’s case fell squarely within the principles laid down in Dharamvir Singh and subsequent rulings, entitling her to disability pension.
Conclusion
Allowing the petition, the Delhi High Court quashed the order of the AFT and directed the respondents to release the petitioner’s disability pension from the date of her release, along with arrears (restricted to three years before filing the OA), within 12 weeks. The arrears, the Court stated, would carry 9% interest if delayed.
The Court further directed that the petitioner would also be entitled to rounding off of the disability pension to 50% in terms of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India v. Ram Avtar (2014).
Cause Title: Dropadi Tripathi v. Union Of India & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8709-DB)
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocates A K Trivedi and Dhruv Kothari.
Respondents: Satya Ranjan Swain, SPC and Major Anish Muralidhar (Army)
