Merely labelling diseases as lifestyle-related cannot deny disability pension to Armed Forces personnel: Bombay HC
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by the Union of India challenging orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Mumbai, reaffirming that the findings of a Medical Board are not sacrosanct or immune from judicial scrutiny while deciding disability pension claims of Armed Forces personnel.
The petitions had challenged AFT orders granting disability pension to retired Army and Navy personnel suffering from medical conditions, including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, dyslipidaemia, hearing impairment, psychiatric illnesses, chronic myeloid leukaemia, and other long-term ailments that developed or worsened during service.
A Division Bench led by Chief Justice Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad upheld the Tribunal’s decisions, categorically rejecting the Union of India’s contention that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to interfere with Medical Board conclusions. The Court held that while Medical Boards consist of trained professionals, their opinions cannot be treated as sacrosanct where service records and medical evidence point to service-related causation or aggravation.
According to a report by Law Beat, the High Court was examining a batch of writ petitions filed by the Union of India questioning several AFT orders that had allowed disability pension to service members who were either invalided out or retired in a low medical category. In each of these matters, the Tribunal had concluded that the disabilities were either attributable to military service or aggravated by it, and accordingly directed the grant of disability pension, often after rounding off the disability element to 50 per cent or more.
The Union government approached the Court, asserting that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by re-evaluating the conclusions of duly constituted Invaliding and Release Medical Boards. One of these petitions, Writ Petition No. 1994 of 2024, was treated as the lead case, relating to Lt. Col. S.K. Rathore.
Lt. Col. Rathore had completed over 23 years of service in the Indian Army and was prematurely retired on 1 July 2003 after being placed in a low medical category. His service profile included prolonged exposure to operational and high-stress environments, with postings in Imphal, Tuting in Manipur, Ladakh, and active involvement in Operation Rakshak and Operation Parakram.
There was no dispute that he had entered service without any pre-existing medical condition. The Medical Board records themselves acknowledged that his health had deteriorated due to “continued difficult service conditions as an Infantry Officer”, particularly during Operation Parakram.
Despite this, the Invaliding Medical Board categorised his diabetes mellitus as a “constitutional disorder” unrelated to service, leading to the denial of disability pension.
The Armed Forces Tribunal reversed this assessment and granted him disability pension. This Tribunal order was subsequently challenged by the Union of India before the High Court.
The Union of India argued that Medical Board opinions are rendered by trained medical professionals and should not be substituted by judicial reasoning. It further submitted that lifestyle-related diseases detected during service, especially while posted at peace stations, cannot automatically be linked to military duties. Reliance was placed on the Pension Entitlement Rules, 2008, and it was argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India could not be applied uniformly across cases.
The High Court framed the core question as whether a Medical Board’s declaration of a disease as constitutional or non-service-related is final and binding, thereby excluding the Tribunal’s power to intervene. The Bench answered this decisively in the negative.
In its detailed analysis of the Pension Entitlement Rules, 2008, and the governing regulatory framework. The Court quoted Rule 5 to reiterate that “The medical test at the time of entry is not exhaustive” and that “The mere fact that a disease has manifested during military service does not per se establish attributability to or aggravation by military service.”
However, the Court stressed that these provisions do not render Medical Board findings immune from scrutiny.
On the issue of aggravation, the Bench relied on Rule 11, according to which “a disability shall be conceded aggravated by service if its onset is hastened or the subsequent course is worsened by specific conditions of military service, such as posted in places of extreme climatic conditions, environmental factors related to service conditions, field operations, high altitudes etc.”
The Court underscored that deployment history, service profile, and contemporaneous medical evidence must be meaningfully evaluated while determining disability pension claims.
Rejecting the Union’s argument that the 2008 Rules had restricted eligibility, the Court held that the framework was designed to bring clarity and, in several respects, broaden entitlements. It was observed that denying disability pension solely because a disease surfaced during a peace posting would defeat the spirit of the rules, especially in cases involving long years of operational service.
The Bench further stated that the Armed Forces Tribunal is empowered to test Medical Board conclusions against factual and service-related evidence. Merely labelling a condition as “constitutional” or “lifestyle-related,” the Court ruled, cannot by itself nullify a legitimate disability pension claim, particularly when operational stressors and service exposure have not been adequately factored in.
Finding no legal error or perversity in the Tribunal’s reasoning, the Bombay High Court dismissed all the writ petitions and upheld the grant of disability pension to the retired Armed Forces personnel.
To view the order, click on the link below:
