In a landmark decision that strengthens the rights of military personnel, the Bombay High Court has delivered a significant victory for over 70 armed forces veterans by dismissing more than 70 writ petitions filed by the central government. These petitions challenged disability pension awards previously granted by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), marking a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle for fair compensation for those who served the nation.
Court Rejects Government's Arguments on Disability Pension
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhand firmly ruled that military personnel who develop disabilities during their service are entitled to receive disability pension as a matter of right. The court explicitly rejected the defence ministry's contention that medical board opinions denying such benefits were final and beyond the scope of judicial review, emphasizing the judiciary's role in ensuring justice for veterans.
Shifting the Burden of Proof to Authorities
In a crucial aspect of the judgment, the court held that the onus lies squarely on the authorities to prove that a disability is unrelated to military service, rather than placing the burden on veterans to establish the connection. This reversal of proof represents a fundamental shift in how disability claims are evaluated, making it easier for servicemen and women to access the benefits they deserve.
The bench powerfully stated, "Pension is not a bounty payable on sweet-will and pleasure of the government," while quoting an earlier Supreme Court order. The judges further elaborated that disability pension constitutes "a measure of socio-economic justice" for soldiers and officers who have dedicated their lives to serving the nation, recognizing the sacrifices inherent in military service.
Clarification of Pension Entitlement Rules
Dismissing the Centre's argument that the Pension Entitlement Rules of 2008 imposed stricter eligibility criteria, the court ruled that these provisions actually expanded benefits for military personnel. The judgment emphasized that servicemen who develop conditions such as hypertension and diabetes during deployment in operations, high-altitude areas, and challenging field postings cannot be denied benefits merely because medical boards label their ailments as "lifestyle diseases" without providing proper reasoning.
Presumption of Service-Related Disabilities
The court established an important legal presumption, stating that "a member of the military service is presumed to possess a sound physical and mental condition upon entering the service." Consequently, any deterioration in health must be presumed to be service-related unless authorities can prove otherwise. This presumption significantly strengthens the position of veterans in disability claims proceedings.
The judgment further mandated that medical boards must provide clear, reasoned opinions when denying pension benefits, ensuring transparency and accountability in the evaluation process. This requirement addresses long-standing concerns about arbitrary decisions affecting veterans' access to disability compensation.
Impact on Veterans Across Services
This ruling affects numerous Army and Navy veterans who were previously denied disability pension despite serving in exceptionally challenging conditions. The judgment specifically mentions veterans who served during Operation Parakram and in high-altitude posts in Ladakh and Manipur, recognizing the extreme physical and mental stresses associated with such deployments.
Individual Cases Highlight Systemic Issues
The lead case involved Lieutenant Colonel SK Rathore, who developed diabetes after more than 23 years of dedicated service, including deployment in various operations. Despite his extensive service record, he was denied pension benefits, a situation now rectified by the court's decision.
Another affected officer is Dr. Anan Jaiswal, who served as a surgeon lieutenant at INS Jeevanti in Goa as well as in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. He was forced to leave service in 2012 after being classified with a disability arising from monomelic amyotrophy during his military tenure. Shockingly, the Indian Navy abruptly cancelled Jaiswal's pension payment order (PPO) despite earlier assurances to the Armed Forces Tribunal in Mumbai that the pension would be restored.
The court strongly criticized such practices, stating, "We do not think that the rule makers intended to deprive the military personnel of the benefit of the disability pension on the ground of delay or constitutional disorder or disease, even if such invaliding diseases occurred while in military service. This is not correct to say that the onus to prove that the disability occurred on account of military service has shifted to the military personnel."
This comprehensive judgment represents a significant step toward ensuring that veterans receive the recognition and compensation they deserve for service-related disabilities, setting important legal precedents for future cases involving military benefits and pension rights.
