The Bombay High Court has strongly asserted that the military personnel who is unable to perform his duty and invalided out from service on medical ground deserves grant of pension. Essentially, the Court ruled that the military personnel cannot be deprived of the benefit of the disability pension on the ground of delay or constitutional disorder or disease, even if such invaliding diseases occurred while in military service. Thus, the onus to prove that the disability occurred on account of military service, cannot be shifted to the military personnel.
The Court held that the opinion of a Medical or Release Medical Board, particularly one that deems a disability as constitutional and not attributable to or aggravated by military service, is not sacrosanct. For such an opinion to be valid and form the basis for denying disability pension, it must be supported by clear and cogent reasons.
Hence, in the absence of a reasoned opinion from the Board, the legal presumption that a disability arising during service is attributable to or aggravated by that service (especially when the individual was healthy at the time of entry) prevails, and the onus lies heavily on the employer to rebut this presumption with evidence, not merely an unreasoned opinion, added the Court.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the Armed Forces Tribunal was correct in interpreting the beneficial pension provisions liberally and was justified in interfering with the unreasoned opinions of the Medical Boards.
The Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad observed that the Pension Entitlement Rules-2008 do not represent a drastic change from the pre-2008 regime. In fact, they expand the scope of disability pension to include personnel who retire in a low medical category even after completing their tenure. The rules regarding the onus of proof (Rule 7) and post-discharge claims (Rule 8) dilute the strict requirements of establishing a causal connection, favouring the claimant.
The Bench reiterated the principle established in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India [(2013) 7 SCC 316], that a member of the military is presumed to be in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service if there is no note to the contrary. Any subsequent deterioration in health is presumed to be due to service, and the onus to rebut this lies with the employer.
The Bench held that the assessment made by the Medical Board is recommendatory in nature and subject to review. Citing Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1064], the Bench emphasized that it is crucial, critical, decisive and necessary for the Medical Board to provide clear and cogent reasons for its opinion. Hence, an opinion devoid of reasons strikes at the root of any subsequent action to deny pension and is unsustainable in law.
The Bench affirmed that the Armed Forces Tribunal has the jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of a Medical Board, especially when the opinion is not supported by reasons. Lastly, the Bench concluded that pension is not a bounty but a valuable right. The provisions for disability pension are beneficial and must be interpreted liberally to benefit those who have been sent home with a disability.
Briefly, the central issue revolves around personnel who were granted disability pension by the Armed Forces Tribunal for disabilities such as primary hypertension, diabetes mellitus, obesity, and other conditions. The Union of India had contested these grants.
The lead case concerned Lt. Col. S.K. Rathore, who was prematurely retired in a low medical category on 1st July 2003 after over 23 years of service. He had served in difficult field areas and participated in operations like ‘Rakshak’ and ‘Parakram’. He was not suffering from any disability when he joined the Armed Forces.
However, later, the Medical Board proceedings noted that his health was affected by difficult service conditions, and his disability (Diabetes Mellitus) was aggravated by his deployment in operation ‘Parakram’. Despite this, the Invaliding Military Board opined that the disability was a “constitutional disorder” not connected with military service, and he was denied the pension.
Appearances:
Senior Panel Counsel Amarendra Mishra, along with Advocates Anamika Malhotra, Niranjan Shimpi, Anusha Amin, Sagar. S. Ambedkar, Disha Nidre, and Kedar Dighe, for the Petitioner
Advocates Sagar Batavia, Satendra Kumar, Akshay Patil, Angsuman Ojha, Mahadevan Anand, Dinesh Kumar Bishnoi, Yogendra Pratap Singh, Ranjeet Kumar Singh, H.S. Verma, Dayashankar Pasi, and Vaishnavi Kushwah, for the Respondent
