Merely Labelling Hypertension A 'Lifestyle Disorder' Not Enough To Deny Disability Pension To Air Force Personnel: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that merely branding a disability like hypertension as a "lifestyle disorder" is insufficient to deny disability pension to an Air Force personnel, particularly when the medical opinion rejecting the claim is unsupported by cogent reasons.
A division bench of Justices V Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held,
"lifestyle varies from individual to individual. Hence, a mere statement that the disease of a lifestyle disorder cannot be a sufficient reason to deny the grant of Disability Pension unless the Medical Board has duly examined and recorded the particulars relevant to the individual concerned". (emphasis supplied)
The Court was hearing a petition filed by the Union of India challenging an order dated August 3, 2023, passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) granting disability pension to the Respondent, a former member of the Indian Air Force who had been discharged from service on completion of over 37 years of service in a low medical category.
The authorities had rejected the pension claim on the grounds that hypertension was a result of an "idiopathic/lifestyle-related disorder" and not attributable to or aggravated by military service.
The Union contended that the AFT order was per incuriam as it failed to consider the 'Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 2008', which, they argued, did away with the general presumption in favour of the soldier.
However, the Tribunal had granted personnel relief, directing the grant of a disability element of pension for 'Primary Hypertension' assessed at 30%, broad-banded to 50%.
Dismissing the Union's plea against the AFT order, the High Court relied on its recent decision in UOI v. Hav Ram Kumar and reiterated that disability pension is a beneficial provision which must be interpreted liberally in favour of service personnel.
The Bench noted that under the applicable 2008 Entitlement Rules, the onus lies on the employer to establish that the disease was neither attributable to nor aggravated by service by giving cogent reasons.
"It is a conceded case that he did not suffer from any disability at the time of appointment in the Indian Air Force…Suffice to state, while ascertaining the disability of Hypertension, the Release Medical Board has not given any reasons to support its conclusion that the disability of Primary Hypertension was not relatable to military service. It does not even give any reasons to relate the disability to lifestyle," the Court observed.
Accordingly, the Court upheld the grant of disability pension and dismissed the Union's plea.
Appearance: Ms. Archana Gaur CGSC, Ms. Riddhima Gaur, Mr. Deepu Kumar, Advocates. Mr. Mritunjay, Mr. Padam, DAV Legal Cell, Air Force for Petitioner
Case title: UoI v. 627281 EX MWO (HFO) Tejpal Singh
Case no.: W.P.(C) 749/2026