Burden to Prove Non-Attributability of Disability Rests on Employer: Delhi High Court Upholds Pension - 2025-11-18

Presumption of Service: Delhi High Court Affirms Veteran’s Right to Disability Pension

In a significant ruling for military personnel, the High Court of Delhi has upheld a decision by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) granting disability pension to an Ex-Honorary Flight Officer (HFO) of the Indian Air Force. The case, Union of India and Ors. v. 648216 Ex HFO Rakesh Babu Chaturvedi , centered on whether Primary Hypertension—an ailment developed after 36 years of service—should be considered attributable to military service, even when medical boards classify it otherwise.

The Backdrop: A Career of Service

The respondent, a veteran with over 36 years of service, was released in a Low Medical Category following a diagnosis of Primary Hypertension. While the official Release Medical Board (RMB) categorized the ailment as not attributable to service, it did not dispute the veteran's declaration that he was perfectly fit and free of this condition at the time of his initial enrolment.

The core legal question was whether the employer (the Union of India) could deny disability pension without definitively proving that the disease predated the soldier's service or was truly unrelated to the strains of his long career.

The Legal Tug-of-War

The petitioners argued that the primary hypertension was an "idiopathic disorder" not linked to the specific stresses of field areas or operational duty. However, the High Court bench, led by Justice C. Hari Shankar, rejected this narrow interpretation.

The Court emphasized the "presumption of health" at the time of entry. If a soldier is accepted into the armed forces after rigorous medical screening, they are presumed to be in a sound state of health. Consequently, any ailment that develops thereafter is, by default, presumed to be linked to the service, unless the employer can provide substantial, documented proof to the contrary.

Legal Analysis: The Burden of Proof

Citing the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bijender Singh v. UOI (2025) , the Court held that the burden of proving that a disease is not attributable to, nor aggravated by, military service lies entirely with the employer. The Court noted that a simple categorization by a medical board without detailed, evidence-backed reasoning is insufficient to deny a soldier their entitlements.

Furthermore, the Court distinguished between its supervisory jurisdiction and appellate functions, stating that it would not interfere with the AFT's findings unless there was a glaring error of law. As no such error was found in the tribunal's decision, the High Court dismissed the government's petition.

Key Observations

The judgment features several critical observations regarding the rights of military personnel:

• On the Presumption of Soundness : "The essence of the Rules is that a member of the armed forces is presumed to be in sound physical and mental condition at the time of his entry into the service if there is no note or record to the contrary."
• On the Employer’s Responsibility : "The burden would be on the employer to rebut the presumption that the disability suffered by the member was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service."
• On Liberal Interpretation : "This Court highlighted that the provision for payment of disability pension is a beneficial one which ought to be interpreted liberally. A soldier cannot be asked to prove that the disease was contracted by him on account of military service."

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court dismissed the petition in limine , upholding the AFT's order. The authorities have been directed to comply with the tribunal's order—which mandates the grant of disability pension at 50%—within 12 weeks.

For personnel, this ruling serves as a vital precedent: it reinforces that medical board assessments cannot be used as a blunt instrument to deny pensions. It demands a more rigorous, evidence-based approach from the defense establishment when questioning the service-related nature of a soldier's disability, ensuring that veterans are not left to bear the financial burden of managing health conditions that surfaced during their dedicated service to the nation.