The Delhi High Court recently dismissed nearly 300 petitions filed by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) challenging the grant of disability pensions to soldiers [Union Of India & Ors. Vs Col. Balbir Singh (Retd)].
A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur rejected the Central government's challenge to the orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), which had held that these service personnel were eligible for disability pensions.
The Court observed that disability pension to armed forces personnel is not an act of generosity but an acknowledgement of their sacrifice to the nation.
“It is not an act of generosity, but a rightful and just acknowledgement of the sacrifices endured by them, which manifest in the form of disabilities/disorders suffered during the course of their military service. Such pension ensures that a soldier who suffers injury or disability due to service conditions is not left without support and is able to live with financial security and dignity. It is a measure that upholds the State’s responsibility towards its soldiers, who have served the nation with courage and devotion,” the Court stated.
The government moved the Court claiming that the medical condition of the soldiers involved in this batch of cases was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service and therefore, they are not entitled to disability element of the pension.
Attorney General R Venkataramani appeared for the MoD and argued that the presumption that a member of the force is deemed to have been in sound physical and mental health upon entering service, unless disabilities were noted at the time of enlistment, does not exist anymore.
In a detailed judgement, the Court observed that disability pension cannot be denied to soldiers solely on the ground that the onset of the disability occurred while they were posted at a peace station.
The Court stated that it was disheartened to see the members of the armed forces being denied pension solely on this reason.
Such perception overlooks the continuous physical and mental stress faced by soldiers, it added.
"Undisputably, even when not on the front lines or in hard areas, soldiers are aware that the threat is never far away. This environment, where danger is a constant reality for their peers and could become their own at any moment, creates a persistent state of mental and emotional strain that cannot be overlooked. Thus, military service, whether in peace locations or operational zones, inherently carries stress that may predispose Force personnel to medical conditions such as hypertension," the Court stated.
It also observed that the onus is on the Release Medical Board (RMB) to give a reasoned decision with findings to establish that the disabilities like diabetes and hypertension, as claimed by soldiers, were not due to military services.
“It must always be kept in view that the Armed Forces personnel, in defending this great nation from external threats, have to perform their duties in most harsh and inhuman weather and conditions, be it on far-flung corner of land, in terrains and atmosphere where limits of mans survival are tested, or in air or water, where again surviving each day is a challenge, away from the luxury of family life and comforts. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the RMB to furnish cogent and well-reasoned justification for their conclusions,” the Court stated.
The Court further said that the claim of Army personnel cannot be outrightly rejected based on the place of posting.
With these observation, the Court dismissed the Centre’s petitions.
“Considering the limited scope of the writ jurisdiction in reviewing the orders of the learned Tribunal, no case has been made out warranting interference by this Court with the decision of the learned Tribunal,” the Court stated.
[Read Judgment]