Delhi HC Upholds Disability Pension For Diseases Incurred Post-Enrolment | Pension Is Rightful Recognition Of Armed Forces Sacrifice
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur dismissed a series of writ petitions challenging the orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal. The Court held that no case had been made out to warrant interference with the Tribunal’s decision, which had allowed claims for disability pension by retired Armed Forces personnel. The High Court found that the medical opinions recorded by the Release Medical Boards (RMBs) lacked adequate reasoning, especially in cases where the disease manifested during service and no sufficient grounds were provided to negate the presumption of attributability. The Court directed that the Tribunal's orders allowing disability pension claims should be upheld and refused to remand the cases, citing the prolonged legal battles faced by the respondents.
The writ petitions were filed by the Union of India and other officials challenging the orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The Tribunal had allowed multiple Original Applications filed by retired Armed Forces personnel, holding them entitled to disability pension for various medical conditions diagnosed during their service.
The High Court discussed the factual background of one of the cases, W.P.(C) 140/2024, in detail for contextual understanding. In that matter, the respondent was commissioned into the Indian Army on 10 June 1989 and retired on 30 June 2021 upon attaining superannuation. On 18 January 2012, while posted at Headquarters 41 Artillery Division, Pune, the respondent was diagnosed with Diabetes Mellitus Type-II and placed in the Low Medical Category (P2-Permanent). Despite the diagnosis, the respondent completed the full term of service.
Prior to retirement, the respondent was examined by the RMB on 24 February 2021. The Board assessed the disability at 20% for life and concluded that it was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. As a result, the respondent was denied disability pension upon retirement.
Following this, the respondent submitted a disability claim, which was rejected by the Competent Authority on 12 August 2021. A First Appeal was preferred on 1 October 2021, but it too was rejected on 29 April 2022 by the Appellate Committee on First Appeals.
Subsequently, the respondent approached the Armed Forces Tribunal through Original Application No. 1021/2022. The Tribunal allowed the application, citing the decision in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India & Ors, (2013) 7 SCC 316, which provided that if a disease was not noted at the time of recruitment and manifested during service, it would be presumed to be attributable to service. The Tribunal directed the authorities to grant disability pension at 20% for life, rounded off to 50% for life, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India v. Ram Avtar, Civil Appeal No. 418 of 2012.
The Union of India challenged these decisions through writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioners argued that the RMB had clearly concluded the disease was neither attributable to nor aggravated by service, thus precluding the grant of disability pension. The petitioners contended that the respondents were not invalidated from service but had superannuated after full service, and therefore were not eligible for the benefit.
The learned Attorney General submitted that under the Entitlement Rules, 2008, which replaced the 1982 Rules, there is no longer a presumption in favor of attributability or aggravation unless a clear causal connection is established. He further argued that the RMB and Appellate Authorities had considered all medical and service records and that courts should not interfere with their expert opinions in the absence of compelling evidence.
It was also submitted that the earlier judgments such as Dharamvir Singh (supra), Union of India v. Rajbir Singh, and Union of India v. Manjeet Singh, which relied on the 1982 Rules, were inapplicable to cases governed by the 2008 Rules. The learned Attorney General asserted that the 2008 Rules introduced a policy shift, removing the presumption of attributability in favor of a requirement for establishing a direct causal connection.
The petitioners stated that hypertension and diabetes are lifestyle diseases and that the GMO, 2002/2008 provides guidelines for RMBs to assess such conditions. They argued that the respondents had not exhausted all statutory remedies before approaching the Tribunal and requested that the matters be remanded for re-evaluation.
On the other hand, the respondents’ counsels argued that unless the RMB gives cogent reasons, the presumption should still apply if the disease was not recorded at the time of induction. They submitted that stress and strain in peace postings are also considerable and that the Tribunal had rightly relied on applicable case law and regulations.
The respondents referred to Regulation 423 of the 1983 Regulations and contended that the Tribunal’s application of Dharamvir Singh (supra) remained valid. They also cited a 2019 directive from the Ministry of Law and Justice advising the Ministry of Defence to withdraw pending appeals in similar cases, which the Union had failed to follow.
The Court examined the statutory framework governing disability pensions, noting that the Entitlement Rules, 2008 superseded the earlier 1982 Rules. The Court noted that the Rules govern the process of assessment and determination of attributability and aggravation.
It was stated that "Disability Pension is a composite monthly package consisting of two components: the Service Element and the Disability Element." The Service Element equals 50% of the last reckonable emoluments at the time of invalidation, and the Disability Element for 100% disability amounts to 30% of the emoluments.
Regarding the standard for entitlement, the Court recorded: "eligibility for Disability Compensation is generally subject to the satisfaction of two key conditions: (a) the presence of a disability assessed at 20% or more, and (b) such disability must be attributable to or aggravated by military service."
The Court considered whether the disease discovered during service, absent at entry, could be presumed attributable. It stated that "the RMB has to record reasons as to why it arrives at the conclusion that the disease...was not attributable to such service. In the absence of any such reason, the claim...has necessarily to sustain."
The Court noted that the 2008 Rules altered the earlier presumption, stating that "the mere fact that a disease has manifested during military service does not per se establish attributability to or aggravation by military service." Nonetheless, it recorded: "the onus to establish this fact continues to remain on the RMB, even under Rule 7 of the 2008 Entitlement Rules."
Analysing the RMB’s findings, the Court stated: "Beyond this, there is precious little, in the Report of the RMB, to indicate that the military service...was not the cause of the disease." It added: "A mere statement that the onset of the disease was during a peace posting is clearly insufficient to discharge this onus."
The Court referred to Paragraph 26 of the GMO, 2008, noting that "Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus will be conceded aggravated if onset occurs while serving in Field, CIOPS, HAA and having been diagnosed...who are required to serve in these areas."
It also cited Regulation 423(a) from the 2010 Regulations: "It is immaterial whether the cause...occurred in an area declared to be a Field Area/Active Service area or under normal peace conditions...benefit of reasonable doubt, if any, will be given to the individual."
The Court observed: "military service is inherently stressful due to strict discipline, long working hours, limited personal freedom, and constant readiness...The psychological burden...adds to this strain." Consequently, it recorded that "disability pension cannot be denied solely on the ground that the onset of disability occurred while Force personnel were posted at a Peace Station."
The Court found that the RMB’s opinions in the present cases were unreasoned, merely stating that the disease occurred in a peace area. It observed: "Such cryptic and unreasoned assessment defeats the purpose behind the constitution of the Medical Boards and also leaves the Courts without adequate material to effectively adjudicate the matter."
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India & Ors., it recorded: "the requirement to give reasons by the Medical Board is crucial...not a mere formality...but a necessary material on the basis of which the pension sanctioning authority has to decide."
The Court stated that the Tribunal rightly interfered with the RMB opinions due to the absence of cogent reasoning. It held that "the Tribunal had rightly relied on Dharamvir Singh (supra) and rejected the RMBs’ opinions based solely on the onset in a peace area or classification as a lifestyle disorder."
The Court concluded that the claims for disability pension could not be denied merely on the basis that the disease had its onset in a peace area. It recorded that in light of the findings: "the matters that pertain to Diabetes Mellitus Type II, wherein the RMB has merely opined that the disease is not attributable to or aggravated by military service, solely based on the fact that the onset was at a peace station, cannot be sustained."
The Court held: "the learned Tribunal has rightly allowed such Original Applications." It further stated: "The RMB proceedings and their findings were found inadequate in all these petitions to justify the conclusion that the disability is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service."
The Court rejected the plea to remand the cases for re-evaluation, stating: "in the present cases, the respondents have been fighting for their entitlement for a prolonged period...it was deemed appropriate for this Court to adjudicate them rather than remanding the cases at this stage."
Accordingly, the Court directed: "no case has been made out warranting interference by this Court with the decision of the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the present writ petitions stand dismissed."
Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Col. Balbir Singh (Retd.) and connected matters
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:5082-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 140/2024 & connected matters
Bench: Justice Navin Chawla, Justice Shalinder Kaur
