The Delhi High Court has ruled that there is a presumption that a disability contracted during military service is attributable to or aggravated by it, particularly when the service member was healthy at entry. The onus rests entirely on the employer to rebut this presumption. To lawfully deny a disability pension, the Medical Board must discharge this onus by providing a comprehensive, logical, and rational analysis of the service and medical records, and must record clear, cogent, and well-reasoned findings to justify its conclusion.
A vague and stereotyped assertion, such as attributing a condition to a “lifestyle disorder” without specific, individualized reasoning, is insufficient to discharge this onus and cannot be the basis for denying pensionary benefits, added the Court.
The Court clarified that lifestyle varies from individual to individual, and tagging someone with ‘disease of a lifestyle disorder’ is no sufficient reason to deny the grant of Disability Pension to an Armed Force Personnel (respondent) unless the Medical Board has duly examined and recorded the particulars relevant to the individual concerned.
The Division Bench comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that under the 2008 Entitlement Rules, the onus is not on the service member to prove a causal connection between the disability and military service. Instead, the burden to prove disentitlement remains on the military department.
Citing the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Bijender Singh vs. Union of India, the Bench reiterated the principle that a member of the armed forces is presumed to be in sound physical and mental condition upon entry. Any subsequent deterioration in health is presumed to be due to military service, and the burden is on the employer to rebut this presumption.
The Bench heavily emphasized that if a Medical Board concludes a disability is not attributable to or aggravated by military service, it must provide “cogent reasons” and identify a specific cause other than military service, and “bald statement” is insufficient.
The Bench also observed that in this specific case, the RMB failed to provide any reasons to support its conclusion that the respondent’s Primary Hypertension was not related to military service or to substantiate the claim that it was a lifestyle disorder.
Briefly, the petitioner challenged an order from the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), whereby, the AFT had partially allowed the respondent’s (EX MWO (HFO) Tejpal Singh) application, granting him the disability element of pension for ‘Primary Hypertension’, assessed at 30% and broad-banded to 50% for life, effective from his discharge date.
The respondent was enrolled in the Air Force on 28.10.1981 and was discharged on 31.03.2019 after more than 37 years of service. It was an admitted fact that he had no disability at the time of his entry into service. The onset of his disabilities occurred on 09.02.2013 while he was posted in Jammu/Udhampur.
The Release Medical Board (RMB) found him fit for release with two disabilities: ‘Primary Hypertension’ (30%) and ‘CAD Silent ASMI Normal LV Function’ (30%), with a composite assessment of 50% for life. However, the petitioner’s case was that the RMB found the disability was suffered in a peace area and was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, but was the result of an idiopathic/lifestyle related disorder.
Appearances:
Advocates Archana Gaur, Riddhima Gaur, and Deepu Kumar, for the Petitioner
NA, for the Respondent
