Denial Of Disability Pension To Army Personnel Based On Medical Opinion Unsupported By Full Reasons Invalid: Kerala High Court

The Division Bench of Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John was considering a writ petition that challenged an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal that rejected the claim of the petitioner for disability pension.

“The denial of disability pension based on a medical opinion without providing full reasons to support the opinion cannot be said to be valid,” it held.

The petitioner had enrolled in the army in the year 2004 and was discharged after service of 17 years, in 2021. At the time of his discharge, the Release Medical Board assessed the disabilities as primary hypertension at 30% for life and obesity at 5% for life with a composite disability of 33.5% for life. However, it was opined that the disabilities are neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. His claim for disability pension was rejected.

The petitioner approached the Tribunal being aggrieved by the rejection. The Tribunal found that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the statutory presumptions under Rules 5 and 14 of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 as he got discharged from service on 30.11.2021 in view of Rule 5 of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 2008.

According to Rule 5 of 1982 Rules, the question of entitlement to casualty pensionary awards and evaluation of disabilities has to be considered on the basis of certain presumptions: (i) a member is presumed to have been in sound mental and physical condition upon entering service except for the physical disabilities recorded at the time of entrance, and (ii) in the event of his subsequent discharge from service on medical grounds, deterioration of health has to be presumed to take place due to service.

Rule 14 of 1982 Rules states that in cases where it is established that conditions of military service did not determine or contribute to the onset of a diseases but influenced its subsequent course, will fall for acceptance on the basis of aggravation. It is further stated that a disease, which has led to an individual's discharge or death, will ordinarily be presumed to have arisen in service if no note of it is made at the time of entrance but if medical opinion holds that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior to entrance, the presumption would not be there. Moreover, when a disease is accepted as having arisen in service, it must be established that the conditions of military service determined or contributed to the onset of the disease and that the conditions were due to the circumstances of military service duty.

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the effect of Rule 7 of the 2008 Rules was not properly considered by the Tribunal. He also relied on Union of India and others v. Bhaskaran, wherein it was held that in all cases in which the claim is raised within 15 years of discharge/retirement/invalidment/release, the onus of proof will be primarily on the Department and only in cases wherein claims are raised after 15 years, the burden will be entirely on the claimant.

He placed reliance on two Delhi High Court decisions, which held that it would not be possible to not attribute a disease to military service merely because service was rendered in peace locations or that the disease is a lifestyle disorder.

He also referred to an Apex Court decision [Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India and others] that held that the decision of the authority can be questioned if it relied on medical board opinion devoid of reasons. Further, reliance was placed on Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya v. Distt. Development Officer, Dahod, wherein the Supreme Court expressed the view that social security legislations must be interpreted liberally and beneficially.

The Court then went on examine the afore Rule 7, which states that except in cases where the claim is preferred after 15 years of discharge, the onus would not lie on the claimant. It also referred to the interpretation of the said Rule by the Apex Court in various decisions.

Coming to the present case, the Court noted that since the claim is raised within 15 years from discharge, the onus of proof is primarily on the Department.

Next, the Court looked into the justification given by the medical board in its report. The report had not given full reasons for denying the pension but merely stated 'life style disorder' and 'onset of id in peace tenure. There is no close time association of onset of ID with FD/CIOPS/high altitude tenure', etc.

The Court then came to the conclusion that the same did not assign full reasons to support its opinion. Thus, it allowed the petition and directed to issue a corrigendum PPO granting disability pension to the petitioner within 3 months, failing which an interest of 7% per annum would be added to the unpaid arrears.

Case No: W.P.(C) No.2893/2026

Case Title: Balamurali Krishna M. v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 300

Counsel for the petitioner: T.R. Jagadeesh, Adi Narayanan, Gokulkrishna V.K., Jose Job, Manasi Jagadeesh

Counsel for the respondents: M. Shajna – Central Government Counsel

Click to Read/Download Judgment