Delhi High Court: Disability Pension Can’t Be Denied Solely On Ground That Disability Occurred While Force Personnel Were Posted At Peace Station
The Delhi High Court dismissed Writ Petitions challenging different but comparable Orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Principal Bench, New Delhi.
Justice Navin Chawla, Justice Shalinder Kaur, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court held that the disability pension cannot be denied solely on the ground that the disability occurred while the Force personnel were posted at Peace Station.
The Court held thus in a batch of Writ Petitions challenging different but comparable Orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Principal Bench, New Delhi.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur observed, “A reading of the above reinforces that disability pension cannot be denied solely on the ground that the onset of the disability occurred while the Force personnel were posted at Peace Station. Furthermore, it is evident that when Force personnel have rendered prolonged military service, there exists a substantial onus on the RMB to establish that the hypertension is not attributable to or aggravated by military service.”
The Bench remarked that it is disheartening that members of our Armed Forces are being denied disability pension solely on the aforementioned ground and this overlooks the continuous physical and mental stress faced by soldiers, regardless of their location.
Attorney General of India (AGI) R. Venkataramani represented the Petitioners while Advocate Col IS Yadav represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
The Respondent in the lead case was commissioned into the Indian Army in 1989 and retired from service in 2021, upon attaining the age of superannuation. In 2012, while he was posted at Headquarters 41 Artillery Division, Pune, he was diagnosed with Diabetes Mellitus Type-II and was recommended to be placed in the Low Medical Category (P2-Permanent). However, he completed the full length of his service. At the time of his retirement, since he was placed in the Low Medical Category, he was examined by a duly constituted Release Medical Board (RMB). As per the RMB proceedings, his disability was assessed at 20% for life and was held to be neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Resultantly, he was held not entitled to grant of disability pension upon his superannuation from service.
Therefore, he filed an initial disability claim which was adjudicated and rejected by the competent authority. Being aggrieved, he preferred a First Appeal, which was also rejected by the Appellate Committee. Being dissatisfied, he filed an Application and the AFT allowed the same while holding that the disease would be deemed to be “attributable to service” when there was no record at the time of recruitment indicating that the Respondent was suffering from any such medical condition. Accordingly, the Respondent was held eligible for grant of the disability pension and the Petitioners were directed to grant the benefit of the disability element of pension at 20% for life, to be rounded off to 50% for life, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ram Avtar (Civil Appeal No. 418 of 2012). Hence, the Petitioners approached the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “… the petitioners have ignored the fact that many of the respondents had previously served in field areas or hard areas, only to be diagnosed with their respective disabilities later during their peace postings. Denying benefits under such circumstances not only undermines their service but also fails to acknowledge the effect of their demanding careers. Thus, the possibility cannot be ruled out that these factors jointly and severally can become a chronic source of mental stress and strain, precipitating various medical conditions such as hypertension etc.”
The Court noted that the RMB must not resort to a vague and stereotyped approach but should engage in a comprehensive, logical, and rational analysis of the service and medical records of the personnel, and must record well-reasoned findings while discharging the onus placed upon it.
“… the benefit of the grant of disability pension must be construed liberally and extended to the deserving beneficiaries. … Considering all the factors together, it is evident that the mere fact that the onset of the disease occurred during a peace area posting is not sufficient to negate the cumulative stress of military service, which can contribute to the development of diseases such as Primary Hypertension, IHD etc. The RMB's opinion that the onset took place in a peace station and therefore the disease is not attributable to or aggravated by military service cannot be sustained”, added.
The Court further observed that the Respondents' claim for the disability pension on account of Primary Hypertension, could not be outrightly rejected solely on the basis of the place of the disease’s manifestation.
“In addition thereto, the RMB was under a duty to identify the cause of the disease in its report. In this case, however, it has clearly failed to discharge the onus placed upon it by not providing cogent reasons”, it also said.
The Court concluded that the Respondents have been fighting for their entitlement for long and since the matters have been heard at considerable length, it would only be appropriate for the Court to adjudicate them rather than remanding the cases at this stage, which would result in further inconvenience and delay.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions and upheld the Tribunal’s Orders.
Cause Title- Union of India & Ors. v. Col. Balbir Singh (Retd.) (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5082-DB)
