IAF can't deny disability pension by terming hypertension a lifestyle disorder: Delhi High Court

The Indian Air Force (IAF) cannot deny disability pension to its former employee merely by terming his hypertension condition to be a lifestyle disorder, held the Delhi High Court recently [Union of India Vs 627281 EX MWO (HFO) Tejpal Singh].

The Division Bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora noted that lifestyles vary from individual to individual.

Therefore, a person suffering from hypertension cannot be shut out from disability pension merely by making assumptions about his lifestyle instead of having it properly evaluated by a medical board, which must given reasons for its conclusions, the Court said.

“It must be noted that lifestyle varies from individual to individual. Hence, a mere statement that the disease of a lifestyle disorder cannot be a sufficient reason to deny the grant of Disability Pension unless the Medical Board has duly examined and recorded the particulars relevant to the individual concerned,” the Court's January 19 ruling stated.

The Court made the observation while upholding an Armed Forces Tribunal’s (AFT) decision to order the grant of disability pension to a retired IAF personnel (respondent) who suffered from hypertension.

The respondent had served in the IAF for over thirty-seven years between 1981 to 2019. In 2018, a Release Medical Board found that he had hypertension. The Board's report, however, also indicated that the hypertension was not attributable to the respondent's military service.

In 2023, the AFT held that the respondent is entitled to disability pension for the disability of ‘Primary Hypertension’ with effect from the date of his discharge from the Indian Army along with arrears. 

This decision was challenged by the Central government before the High Court. It submitted that hypertension is a lifestyle disorder and that the retired IAF personnel had served in a peace area.

It further submitted that AFT did not consider the ‘Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 2008’ while delivering its 2023 order, rendering the decision invalid.

The Court disagreed.

It noted that the respondent did not suffer from any disability at the time of his appointment to the IAF, and that the 2018 Release Medical Board's report did not give any reasons to support its conclusion that the disability of "Primary Hypertension" was not relatable to military service.

"It does not even give any reasons to relate the disability to lifestyle," the Court added.

Further, the Court stated that as per settled law, the Board has an obligation to record its reasons for its findings. 

“The position of law in this regard is clear, as there is an obligation on the part of the Medical Board to give reasons for coming to a conclusion therefore, the Medical Board must record the reasons, findings while discharging the onus placed upon it,” the Court stated. 

With these observations, the High Court upheld the AFT's decision and dismissed the Central government's appeal.

Central government standing counsel Archana Gaur with advocates Riddhima Gaur and Deepu Kumar appeared for the Union of India.

[Read judgment]