Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a retired Indian Army personnel, served for 34 years, 5 months, and 4 days before retiring on 31.5.2021. Prior to retirement, a Release Medical Board on 28.5.2021 assessed his disability due to hypertension at 30% for life but opined that it was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. The denial of disability pension was communicated on 20.9.2021. The petitioner's first appeal to the Appellate Committee was rejected on 10.2.2022. He then approached the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) via OA No.165 of 2022, which was dismissed on 24.10.2024. Aggrieved, he filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the AFT order and direct grant of disability pension from 1.6.2021 at 30% broad-banded to 50%. The court examined the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, particularly Rule 173, and the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982. It noted that hypertension is a stress-related disease and that the medical board's opinion lacked reasons. The court relied on the principle that in cases of doubt, the benefit should go to the soldier. It held that the disability was attributable to military service, set aside the AFT order, and directed the respondents to grant disability pension from 1.6.2021 with broad-banding to 50%.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disability Pension - Attributability - Hypertension - Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, Rule 173 - The petitioner, a retired Army personnel, was assessed with 30% disability due to hypertension but denied pension on ground that disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by service. The court held that hypertension is a stress-related disease and the medical board's opinion was not supported by reasons. Applying the principle that benefit of doubt should be given to the soldier, the court allowed the petition and directed grant of disability pension from 1.6.2021 with broad-banding to 50% (Paras 1-26).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the disability of hypertension suffered by the petitioner is attributable to or aggravated by military service, entitling him to disability pension under the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The order of the Armed Forces Tribunal dated 24.10.2024 is quashed. The respondents are directed to grant disability pension to the petitioner from 1.6.2021 at 30% disability, which shall be broad-banded to 50% as per existing orders, within eight weeks.
Law Points
- Disability pension
- Attributability to military service
- Hypertension as stress-related disease
- Burden of proof on department
- Pension Regulations for the Army
- 1961
- Rule 173
- Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards
- 1982
Case Details
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Chief Justice, G.Arul Murugan, J.
Mr.Ram Pranav for Mr.S.Veeraraghavan (Petitioner), Mr.V.Chandrasekaran Senior Panel Counsel (Respondents 1-5)
NTR 16636-L Col Yesudian Sugumar P (Retd)
Ministry of Defence, Union of India, The Chief of The Army Staff, Additional Dte Gen MPRS(O), PCDA (Pensions), Armed Forces Tribunal Regional Bench Chennai
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal rejecting claim for disability pension.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner seeks quashing of the Armed Forces Tribunal order dated 24.10.2024 and direction to grant disability pension from 1.6.2021 at 30% broad-banded to 50%.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's claim for disability pension was rejected by the Release Medical Board, First Appeal, and Armed Forces Tribunal on the ground that his hypertension disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.
Previous Decisions
Release Medical Board on 28.5.2021 assessed disability at 30% but denied attributability; First Appeal rejected on 10.2.2022; Armed Forces Tribunal dismissed OA No.165 of 2022 on 24.10.2024.
Issues
Whether the disability of hypertension is attributable to or aggravated by military service under the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961.
Whether the Armed Forces Tribunal erred in upholding the denial of disability pension.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that hypertension is a stress-related disease caused by adverse service conditions and stressful job nature, and that the medical board's opinion was without reasons.
Respondents argued that the medical board had opined that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by service, and that the petitioner failed to prove otherwise.
Ratio Decidendi
Hypertension is a stress-related disease and in the absence of any specific reason from the medical board, the disability is attributable to military service. The benefit of doubt should be given to the soldier. Under Rule 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, a disability attributable to service entitles the soldier to disability pension.
Judgment Excerpts
Embittered by an order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal rejecting the claim of the petitioner seeking disability pension, the present writ petition is filed.
The nub of the matter runs thus: The petitioner retired from the Indian Army on 31.5.2021 after rendering service of 34 years, 5 months and 4 days.
The decision of the Release Medical Board denying disability pension was communicated on 20.9.2021.
Procedural History
The petitioner retired on 31.5.2021. Release Medical Board on 28.5.2021 assessed 30% disability due to hypertension but denied attributability. Denial communicated on 20.9.2021. First Appeal rejected on 10.2.2022. OA No.165 of 2022 before Armed Forces Tribunal dismissed on 24.10.2024. Present writ petition filed under Article 226.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961: Rule 173
- Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982:
