Soldier's Disability Pension Claim Can't Be Defeated By Merely Labeling Diabetes, Hypertension As 'Lifestyle Disorder': Kerala High Court

A Division Bench of Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John was considering a writ petition filed by the Union of India challenging an Armed Forces Tribunal order directing grant of disability pension to Honorary Captain Mohanraj T.K., who had been invalided out of service after being diagnosed with Type-II Diabetes Mellitus and Primary Hypertension.

The Union of India argued that the Armed Forces Tribunal had erred in disregarding the Medical Board's finding that the respondent's disabilities were neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.

The respondent relied on Supreme Court decisions including Sukhvinder Singh v. Union of India[(2014) 14 SCC 364], Bijender Singh v. Union of India [(2013) 7 SCC 316] and Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India[(2013) 7 SCC 316], to contend that a soldier is presumed to be in sound health at the time of recruitment unless a disease is recorded, and the burden lies on the employer to establish non-entitlement.

The Release Medical Board had denied attributability for Type-II Diabetes Mellitus and Primary Hypertension solely on the ground that they were lifestyle-related conditions under the Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pensions).

The High Court observed that Regulation 423 of the Regulations for Medical Services for the Armed Forces, 1983 creates a statutory presumption that a disease leading to discharge is deemed to have arisen during service if no note of it existed at the time of recruitment. The only exception is where the Medical Board specifically records reasons showing that the disease could not have been detected during the recruitment medical examination.

The Court held that since no disease had been recorded when the respondent entered service, and the Medical Board had not explained why the illnesses could not have been detected at that stage, the respondent was entitled to the benefit of the statutory presumption.

“It is a core responsibility of the Government and society to protect the morale of the soldiers, as soldiers are the ones who risk their lives for the country. A soldier is a blank cheque written to the country for any amount up to and including his life. Article 33 of the Constitution of India allows the Government to restrict or abrogate some rights of the members of the armed forces in order to ensure proper discharge of duties and maintenance of discipline and in such a situation, the contention that the disease is a lifestyle disorder cannot be accepted as a sufficient reason to deny the claim for disability element of pension.” the Court said.

The Court thus held that there was no jurisdictional error in the Armed Forces Tribunal's order, and hence dismissed the Union's writ petition. It upheld the Tribunal's direction requiring the competent Medical Board to assess the composite disability arising from Type-II Diabetes Mellitus and Primary Hypertension and to grant the respondent the disability element of pension with consequential benefits.

Also Read: Hypertension, Diabetes Can't Be Branded As 'Lifestyle Diseases' To Deny Disability Pension To Armed Force Personnel: Bombay High Court

Also Read: Merely Labelling Hypertension A 'Lifestyle Disorder' Not Enough To Deny Disability Pension To Air Force Personnel: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Union of India and Ors. v K Sub Maj (Hony Capt) Mohnraj TK

Case No: WP(C) 19501/ 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 389

Counsel for Petitioner: M.S. Kiran (Sr. Panel Counsel)

Counsel for Respondents: Ratheesh B