Supreme Court dismisses Central government's appeals against disability pension to ex-Army officers

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a batch of around 271 appeals and special leave petitions filed by the Union government in cases concerning the grant of the disability element of service pension to several retired army officers [Union of India v. Col NC Isaac].

A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe passed the ruling on challenges by the Union government to orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) and High Courts granting relief to several retired army personnel who sought disability pension.

The retired officers had approached the AFT/ High Courts after Release Medical Boards (RMBs) of the army classified their disabilities as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service (NANA).

This classification meant that the army was held not liable to pay the retired personnel disability pension, since the disability was neither caused nor worsened by their military service.

After the AFT and High Courts overturned such classifications and granted the retired officers relief, the Central government challenged such rulings before the Supreme Court.

By its September 15 ruling, the Court acknowledged that the Entitlement Rules of 2008 removed an earlier presumption that a person is physically fit when he joins military service.

However, the Court ruled that this presumption would automatically mean that a disability detected when such an officer leaves the army is unconnected to military service.

The Court rejected the Union's argument that the 2008 rules had fundamentally changed the earlier beneficial framework laid down in the Entitlement Rules of 1982.

Ordinarily, the burden to prove that such an officer's disability is not attributable to or aggravated by military service would continue to lie on the employer (army), the Court ruled.

"The mere addition of a causal requirement and a removal of the presumption that when a member joins service healthy, and, if, he leaves with a disability, it ought to be attributable to the military service, does not, by itself, change the core scheme of the Entitlement Rules 1982 because the other beneficial provisions broadly remain untouched," it said.

However, where a claimant approaches the relevant forum 15 or more years after discharge, retirement, invalidment or release, this burden shifts to the claimant, the Court added.

Pertinently, the Court also stressed that the findings of Medical Boards in such matters cannot be brushed aside. It said tribunals dealing with pending claims must closely examine the Board's opinion and the reasons for its findings before deciding whether disability pension should be granted.

In the present batch of appeals, however, the Court found no ground to interfere with the orders under challenge and dismissed the Union's appeals on grounds of both delay and merits. The Court also expressed concern over continued litigation in such cases.

"The sad part of this litigation is that, out of around 271 civil appeals and special leave petitions, most of them are barred by limitation. Many similar appeals that were barred by limitation have already been dismissed in the past; the present batch is only a small number that survive. Moreover, it is significant to note that the number of appeals rejected at the first appellate stage, after a dismissal by the RMB, far exceeds those accepted. As per information obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005, of the 2,997 appeals before the First Appellate Authority, almost 2,855 of the claims were rejected and only 142 appeals are accepted. Before the Second Appellate Authority, out of 456 appeals, 439 were rejected and only 17 appeals are accepted," the Court said.

In this regard, the Court further referred to the 2015 Raksha Mantri Committee of Experts report, which had recommended withdrawal of appeals of this nature pending against disabled soldiers.

It noted that the recommendation had "not been faithfully implemented."

"Appeals such as these are filed and continue to be filed, even after the Ministry of Defence accepted the Committee's recommendation for withdrawal of this class of litigation," the judgment stated.

Attorney General R Venkataramani appeared for the Union government.

Advocates Sudhanshu Pandey, MV Mukunda, Brig Shrivastava, US Maurya, Col. Naresh Ghai, Siddharth Agarwal, Girish Kumar, Ajit Kakkar, Praveen Kumar, Aditya Puar, Col IS Singh, Baldev Singh, Maheravesh Rein, Vivekbhai Patel and Kanti appeared for the respondents/ex-servicemen.

[Read Judgment]