Disability Developed During Service is Presumed Attributable to Military Service Unless Employer Proves Otherwise: Delhi High Court - 2025-08-20

Legal News & Court Updates.

Delhi High Court Upholds Disability Pension for Air Force Veteran, Reaffirms 'Presumption of Attributability'

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition by the Union of India challenging an Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) order that granted disability pension to a retired Air Force Warrant Officer. A division bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla affirmed that a disability developed during service is presumed to be attributable to military service unless the employer can prove otherwise.

Case Background

The case, Union of India and Ors vs Ex WO Om Prakash Retd , involved a veteran who had served in the Indian Air Force for nearly 38 years. He was released in a Low Medical Category after being diagnosed with Primary Hypertension, with a disability assessed at 30%. The veteran had declared at the time of joining that he did not suffer from the ailment. The AFT had initially allowed his application for disability pension, a decision which the Union of India challenged in the High Court.

Petitioner's Arguments

The Union of India, represented by SPC Vivek Sharma, contested the AFT's decision. The Release Medical Board (RMB) had opined that the veteran's hypertension was not attributable to military service, noting that its onset was in a peace station and had no close time association with stress from field or high-altitude area service.

High Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The High Court found no reason to interfere with the AFT's order, exercising its limited certiorari jurisdiction. The bench highlighted several key facts that supported the veteran's claim:

• No Pre-existing Condition: The veteran was healthy at the time of entry into service, a fact not disputed by the authorities.
• Long Service: The disability manifested after over 37 years of service.
• Lack of Causal Link by Employer: The court reiterated its stance from a previous judgment in UOI v Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso , stating that if an individual is healthy upon entry, the RMB must "positively identify the cause for the ailment" to justify a finding that it is not service-related. Simply stating it occurred in a peace station was deemed insufficient.
• No Fault of the Individual: The Commanding Officer's certificate explicitly stated that the disability was not due to the individual's own negligence or misconduct.

The court emphasized a crucial legal principle, fortified by the Supreme Court's decision in Bijender Singh v UOI (2025) , which established 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... In the event of subsequent discharge from service on medical ground, any deterioration in health would be presumed to be due to military service. The burden would be on the employer to rebut the presumption..."

The judgment underscored that the provision for disability pension is a beneficial one that must be interpreted liberally in favor of the armed forces member.

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court dismissed the Union of India's petition "in limine" (at the outset), finding no error in the AFT's judgment. The bench directed the government to ensure compliance with the AFT's order to grant disability pension to Ex WO Om Prakash within four weeks.

This ruling reinforces a significant protection for armed forces personnel, solidifying the legal presumption that disabilities arising during a service career are connected to the rigors of military life, placing a high burden of proof on the employer to demonstrate otherwise.