The Delhi High Court recently reaffirmed the importance of disability pension for soldiers, emphasizing that military personnel endure immense physical and mental stress in service to the nation.

The Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul upheld the grant of disability pension to two soldiers, rejecting the Union of India's appeals against decisions by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT).

The Court observed that service-related ailments and disabilities are an inherent risk of military life. “The bravest of soldiers is prone, given the conditions in which he serves the nation, to fall prey to bodily ailments which, at times, may be disabling in nature, rendering him unable to continue in military service. In such circumstances, the least that the nation can do is provide comfort and solace during the years that remain,” the Court remarked.

The Bench said, "There are those of us who eulogize and revere these words, but stop there. Then there are those who make it part of their lives, and are willing to sacrifice their all for their country – who, while we sip our hot cappuccinos by the fireplace, are braving icy winds at the border, willing to lay down their lives at a moment’s notice. Can anything, that the nation, and we as its citizens, give to these true sons of the motherland ever be too much?"

Case Of Gawas Anil Madso

One of the soldiers, Gawas Anil Madso, joined the Indian Army in 1985 and was discharged in 2015 after being diagnosed with Diabetes Mellitus (DM) Type II. A Release Medical Board (RMB) assessed his disability at 20 percent for life, yet denied him a disability pension, concluding that his ailment was not attributable to military service.

The High Court disagreed with this assessment, holding that the RMB report was "completely bereft of reasons" as to why Madso’s diabetes, diagnosed 34 years after his induction into service was not considered a result of military duty.

While acknowledging that military service rules do not automatically presume an illness to be service-related, the Court made it clear that the burden of proof does not lie solely on the soldier. Instead, it is for the military authorities to establish that the disease is unrelated to service.

“Diabetes is a disease which can be caused, and exacerbated, by stressful living conditions,” the Court noted, adding that whether the disease manifested during a peace posting or active duty was not the deciding factor.

The Court held that in such cases, the RMB must provide a clear explanation dissociating the disease from military service, which it failed to do in Madso’s case. Consequently, the Court upheld the AFT’s order granting him a disability pension.

Case of Amin Chand

The second case involved Amin Chand, who joined the Army in 2005 and was set to retire in 2020. Before his retirement, he was diagnosed with Peripheral Arterial Occlusive Disease in his right lower limb, leading to a 20 percent disability assessment. Like Madso, he was also denied a disability pension, prompting him to approach the AFT, which ruled in his favor.

The High Court upheld the AFT’s ruling, criticizing the RMB’s decision-making process. The Court noted that the report denying Chand a disability pension was non-speaking and unreasoned, merely stating that the disease was not attributable to or aggravated by military service.

“A non-speaking report, merely holding, without prelude or preface, that the disease, though it arose during the military service of the claimant, was not attributable to or aggravated by military service, cannot suffice to deny him disability pension,” the Court held.

Soldiers’ Sacrifices Must Be Recognized

The Court strongly underscored the duty of the nation to support its soldiers, recalling former U.S. President John F. Kennedy’s famous words: “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” It noted that while many appreciate these words in principle, soldiers live by them, making personal sacrifices to protect the country.

"It is to this laudable end that provisions have been engrafted, in our laws, providing for financial benefits to such soldiers, or military personnel, who encounter disease or disability which is attributable to, or aggravated by, military service. Among these financial benefits is disability pension, and it is the entitlement of such officers, and soldiers, to disability pension, as available in law, that the petitioners have sought, in this petition, and several others which come before us on a daily basis, to call into question," the Court said.

The Court concluded that disability pension provisions exist to honor the sacrifices of military personnel and provide financial security when they suffer service-related disabilities. "We, therefore, find no cause to interfere with the decision of the AFT in this case either, within the limits of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, we find that no case has been made out by the Union of India for issuance of notice in either of these writ petitions. For all the aforesaid reasons, both the writ petitions are dismissed in limine. The impugned orders passed by the learned AFT are upheld in their entirety," the Bench ordered.

Cause Title: Union Of India & Ors. v. Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso [Neutral Citation No. 2025: DHC: 2021-DB]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Senior Panel Counsels Jivesh Kumar Tiwari, K.C. Dubey, Advocates Samiksha, R.K. Dagar, Rupesh Kumar

Respondent: Advocate US Maurya

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Justice C Hari ShankarJustice Ajay DigpaulDelhi High Court

Sukriti Mishra

    Sukriti Mishra was a Legal Correspondent at Verdictum. She covered the Supreme Court. She completed her graduation with BA. LL.B (Hons.) from The ICFAI University, Dehradun. Sukriti started covering courts in March 2022. She had previously worked with another legal news portal, where she covered the Delhi High Court and Trial Courts.