COURT: Supreme Court of India
BENCH: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
FACTS:
The Appellant was initially enrolled in the Indian Army in the year 1985. However, his military service was cut short when he was invalided out in 1989 after being placed in a low medical category. This action was based on the findings of the Invaliding Medical Board, which diagnosed him with "generalized tonic-clonic seizure old 345 V-67." The Board assessed the extent of his disability at less than 20%, concluding that he was unfit to continue in military service. Subsequently, the Appellant filed an Application before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. He contended that his disability was attributable to his military service and, therefore, he was entitled to receive the disability element of the disability pension. He also sought the rounding off of his disability to 50% in accordance with the applicable rules and precedents. However, the AFT, after considering the case, held that since the assessed disability was below the prescribed minimum threshold of 20%, the Appellant was not eligible for any disability pension. Accordingly, his Application was dismissed.
Undeterred by this setback, the Appellant filed a Review Application under Rule 18 of the Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2008, seeking a reconsideration of the Tribunal’s earlier decision. In this Review Application, he reiterated his claim for disability pension and rounding off, arguing that the assessment of less than 20% was incorrect or insufficiently considered. Nonetheless, the AFT found no justifiable grounds to reopen or modify its original decision and dismissed the Review Application as well. Furthermore, the Appellant's request for leave to appeal against the Tribunal's order was also declined by the AFT. Left with no other remedy, the Appellant proceeded to approach the Supreme Court by filing an Appeal, challenging the orders passed by the AFT and seeking a recognition of his right to disability pension based on the nature of his medical condition and its alleged linkage to his military service.
ISSUES:
The case raised several key issues, including whether the Appellant was entitled to disability pension despite the Invaliding Medical Board assessing his disability at less than 20%. The Court also had to determine if the disability was attributable to or aggravated by military service, qualifying him for pension benefits. Further, the issue was whether the AFT erred in dismissing the claim solely due to the disability being below the 20% threshold and whether the Appellant was entitled to have his disability rounded off to 50%. The Court also considered the AFT’s rejection of the Review Application and the denial of leave to appeal. Lastly, the Court addressed whether the Appellant was entitled to arrears, interest, and a lifelong disability pension starting from 01.01.1996.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Supreme Court, after hearing the contentions of the counsel and examining the case, set aside the impugned orders dated 22.01.2018 and 26.02.2016 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT). The Court directed the respondents to grant the disability element of disability pension to the Appellant at the rate of 50% with effect from 01.01.1996, for life. It further ordered that the arrears should carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum until payment is made. The Court stipulated that the respondents must comply with this order within three months from the date of judgment. Both appeals were allowed, but no costs were awarded.
The Supreme Court, in its reasoning, observed that diseases or disabilities attributable to or aggravated by military service can include conditions arising from prolonged exposure to hostile work environments, extreme weather conditions, or occupational hazards. The Court enunciated the principle that if an individual is discharged from service on medical grounds, any subsequent deterioration in their health should be presumed to be linked to their military service. The burden of proof rests on the employer to rebut this presumption and demonstrate that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. If the Medical Board deems the disease could not have been detected at the time of entry into service, it is required to provide a clear explanation for its stance.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that a soldier should not be compelled to prove that the disease or disability was contracted or aggravated due to military service. The fact that a soldier was found fit during their medical examination at the time of joining the service creates a presumption that they were disease-free at that point. For the employer to argue otherwise, the Court stated that they must provide adequate reasons for stating that the disease was not related to military service. In this case, the Invaliding Medical Board had clearly noted that the Appellant had no disability prior to joining the army, which further supported the presumption of the disability being service-related. The Court concluded that the AFT failed to properly examine whether the disability was attributable to or aggravated by military service, and as such, the Tribunal’s orders were found to be legally unsustainable.
ANALYSIS:
In this case, the Supreme Court considered the Appellant’s entitlement to a disability pension despite an Invaliding Medical Board's assessment of his disability at less than 20%. The central issue was whether the disability was attributable to or aggravated by the Appellant’s military service. The Court emphasized the presumption that any medical deterioration post-discharge, particularly from conditions arising during military service, should be considered linked to service, unless proven otherwise. It placed the burden of proof on the employer to rebut this presumption, highlighting that if the Medical Board concludes that a condition could not have been detected at the time of entry, it must provide clear reasoning. In the Appellant’s case, the Invaliding Medical Board had clearly stated that his disability did not pre-exist his military service, thus supporting the claim that the disability was service-related. The Court also criticized the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) for not properly addressing the issue of whether the disability was linked to the Appellant's military service, finding the Tribunal’s dismissal of the claim legally unsustainable.
The Court further deliberated on the broader principle that soldiers should not be forced to prove that their disabilities were caused or aggravated by their military service, especially when they were deemed fit during their initial medical examinations. This creates a presumption of health at the time of entry. The Court held that the AFT's failure to appropriately consider the linkage between the Appellant's disability and military service constituted a legal error. In light of this, the Supreme Court ordered the Appellant to receive disability pension at a rate of 50% from 01.01.1996, along with arrears carrying interest at 6% per annum. The Court also mandated that the order be complied with within three months, effectively granting the Appellant the benefits he was entitled to under the relevant pension regulations, thus rectifying the Tribunal’s earlier mistake.
info@adhwaitha.com
