In a significant ruling that reinforces the rights of military personnel, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an Army officer, who was found medically fit at the time of enrolment but later suffered a disability, is entitled to receive a disability pension. The judgment underscores the principle that a service-related disability, even if it manifests after commissioning, warrants compensation and support from the state.
The Court's Landmark Decision and Rationale
The bench, comprising Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj, delivered the verdict while hearing a petition filed by a former Short Service Commissioned Officer. The officer had been commissioned into the Army in 2008 after being declared medically fit in all respects during the pre-commission medical examination. However, during his service, he was diagnosed with "Anxiety Neurosis/Depression" and was subsequently invalidated out of service in 2013. The Release Medical Board (RMB) categorised his disability as "neither attributable to, nor aggravated by military service."
The officer challenged this classification, arguing that the stress and strain of military service had directly caused his psychiatric condition. The High Court meticulously examined the evidence and legal precedents. It noted that the officer had a clean bill of health at the time of entry, with no prior history of the illness. The court emphasised that the "theory of presumption" under the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982, must be applied liberally in favour of the personnel.
Justice Bhardwaj stated that when a person is found fit at enrolment and later suffers a disability during service, a "presumption of aggravation" by service conditions arises. The burden of proof then shifts to the authorities to provide concrete evidence that the disability was entirely unrelated to service. Since the authorities failed to disprove this presumption, the court ruled in the officer's favour.
Overturning the Release Medical Board's Findings
The court set aside the RMB's opinion, calling it "perverse" and "unsustainable in law." It directed the Union of India through the Ministry of Defence to grant the petitioner disability pension from the date of his release from service. Furthermore, the court ordered that the arrears be paid to him within a period of two months from the date of the order. This directive ensures not only future benefits but also provides retrospective financial relief for the years the officer was denied his rightful dues.
The judgment relied heavily on a similar precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of Dharamvir Singh vs Union of India (2013). The apex court had held that if a disease leading to discharge surfaces during service, it should be presumed to be attributable to service unless proven otherwise. The Punjab and Haryana High Court's ruling firmly aligns with this pro-veteran judicial philosophy.
Broader Implications for Military Personnel
This verdict has far-reaching consequences for thousands of armed forces personnel. It establishes a crucial legal safeguard for those who develop health issues due to the unique and demanding environment of military life. The ruling clarifies that the "fit at enrolment" status cannot be used to automatically deny disability benefits for conditions that emerge later. The mental and physical rigours of service are officially recognised as potential causative factors.
The decision is a stern reminder to administrative and medical boards to apply pension rules in a manner that is just, fair, and beneficial to the service member. It reinforces the concept of the state's obligation towards those who have served in the defence forces, especially when their health has been compromised during that service. Legal experts believe this judgment will empower many other veterans and serving personnel to seek rightful redressal for similar grievances.
In conclusion, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has delivered a compassionate and legally sound judgment that prioritises the welfare of soldiers. By granting disability pension to the officer, the court has upheld the dignity of military service and ensured that those who bear the burdens of defending the nation are not left to bear the financial and medical consequences alone.
