The Punjab and Haryana High Court reiterated that an individual is considered to be in sound physical and mental health at the time of military enlistment, unless there is explicit documentation to the contrary.

The case concerned petitioner, who was enlisted in the Defence Security Corps (DSC) in August 1997 and served for over ten years until his discharge in August 2007. He was discharged after being placed in a low medical category, based on an assessment by the Release Medical Board. At the time of discharge, the Medical Board diagnosed Mishra with the condition "CAD IWMI-SVD 1-24" and assessed his disability at 30%. Despite this, the Board concluded that his condition was not attributable to, nor aggravated by, his military service.

Based on this assessment, his request for a disability pension was rejected by the competent authority, and this decision was upheld in two subsequent appeals, in March 2009 and December 2010. Dissatisfied with the rejection, he filed an application before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), challenging the denial of his disability pension. However, the AFT dismissed his application in April 2014, maintaining that his condition was unrelated to his military service.

In response to the AFT’s decision, he approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court with a writ petition, seeking to overturn the dismissal and arguing that his disability was either caused or aggravated by his service in the DSC.

The Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma highlighted that the benefit of the doubt must be given to the disabled soldier. In this context, it is the responsibility of the Union of India, as the employer, to provide sufficient and convincing evidence to show that the disability was neither caused nor worsened by military service. The Court further observed that if there is no record of the individual having any pre-existing health issues at the time of enlistment, any subsequent deterioration or onset of disease should be presumed to be linked to military service.

The Court pointed out, “Furthermore, though therein a presumption is assigned vis-à-vis the sound physical and mental health of any member of the defence establishment concerned, especially when at the stage of his becoming enrolled, there is no note or record about his becoming beset with any disease. Moreover, though therein there is also a further presumption, that when any deterioration thereto, thus occurs subsequently, thereby the said happening of deterioration(s) or onsetting of any disease, rather is to be presumed to be a sequel of his rendering service as a member of the defence establishment,”

Upon reviewing the process followed by the Medical Board and the AFT, the High Court found that the medical evaluation lacked a thorough investigation into the origin, progression, or potential exacerbation of his condition. The Court stated that the Medical Board’s assessment was superficial and violated the principles laid down in the Guide to Medical (Military Pension), 2002, and the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982.

The High Court relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India, which affirmed that a soldier is presumed to be in sound health at the time of enlistment unless explicitly noted otherwise. The Court further ruled that any deterioration in health during or after military service must be presumed to have been caused by the service unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary.

Additionally, the Court stated that even if the disability occurred during service in a peaceful area, it could still be considered to have arisen or been aggravated by military service, unless explicitly excluded under the relevant regulations.

In its judgment, the Court quashed the AFT’s decision and directed the authorities to process Mishra’s disability pension claim within three months. The Court also ordered the inclusion of rounding-off benefits in accordance with the ruling in Union of India v. Ram Avtar.

Cause Title: Krishna Nandan Mishra v. Union of India & Ors., [2024:PHHC:168527-DB]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Navdeep Singh, Roopan Atwal, and Srishti Sharma

Respondent: Panel Counsel Narender Kumar Vashist

Click here to read/download Order