Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
J. NISHA BANU, N. MALA, JJ.
C. Puratchidasan - Petitioner
Versus
The Armed Forces Tribunal - Respondent
W.P. No. 27217 of 2023
Decided On : 28-03-2024
Disability Pension - Military Service - Army Rule 13(3), Regulation 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982, Guide to Medical Officers(Military Pension) 2002 - The court discussed the petitioner's military service, disability pension claim, medical board proceedings, and the legal provisions related to disability pension. The court highlighted the principles from various cases and regulations, emphasizing the presumption of sound physical and mental condition upon entering service and the onus of proof on the employer to show non-entitlement.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former military personnel, filed a writ petition seeking disability pension, claiming that his schizophrenia was attributable and aggravated by military service. The respondents rejected his claim, leading to multiple appeals and applications. The 1st respondent dismissed the petitioner's application for disability pension, citing that the disorder fell outside the purview of attributability of military service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's disability was not attributable to or aggravated by military service, as per the medical board's opinion. However, the court held that the medical board's conclusion lacked proper application of mind and did not consider the presumption of sound physical and mental condition upon entering service.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the attributability of the petitioner's disability to military service, the proper application of the legal provisions related to disability pension, and the onus of proof in establishing non-entitlement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the presumption of sound physical and mental condition upon entering service, the onus of proof on the employer to show non-entitlement, and the need for proper application of mind by the medical board in determining disability attributability.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to pay disability pension to the petitioner as per the rules, emphasizing the entitlement of the petitioner to disability pension based on the legal framework and principles discussed.
JUDGMENT :
J. Nisha Banu, J.
(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for writ of writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records connected with the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in O.A.No.176 of 2021 dated 01.12.2023 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to sanction the petitioner’s disability pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 14.11.1998 and disburse the arrears.)
1. This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records connected with the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in O.A.No.176 of 2021 dated 01.12.2023 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to sanction the petitioner’s disability pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 14.11.1998 and disburse the arrears.
2. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on 26.06.1991 and was reported to Artillery centre, Nasik Roadcamp for requisite Military Training. The petitioner rendered blemishless record of service. The petitioner was posted to a different Regiment. On 03.10.1996, the petitioner was admitted as “CVS (INV) NAD” in 174 Military Hospital. Then again admitted on 25.02.1997 for “SCHIZOPHRENIA (CATATONICS)” and was discharged on 09.04.1997. Again diagnosed for “SCHIZOPHRENIZ (CATATONICS)” for a period of six months from 25.07.1997 and was in the same category till 25.07.1998.
3. The petitioner was again admitted in the Military Hospital on 17.07.1998 as a case on “ABONORMAL BEHAVIOUR” and was transferred to Command Hospital Air Force, Bangalore on 23.07.1998. The petitioner further averred in the writ petition that he has been assessed at 60% disability for 5 years. Since he was recommended by medical specialist as unfit to be in service on diagnosis of Schizophrenia [catatonics], he was invalidated out from service in Low Medical Category ‘EEE [Psy]Permanent’ and subsequently was sent before an invalidment medical board [IMB] at Command hospital Air Force, Bangalore, on 23.10.1998 to assess the cause, nature and degree of disablement. The invaliding medical board proceedings was approved and the petitioner was invalidated out from service with service from 14.11.1998 under Army Rule 13 [3] after rendering a service for a period of 7 years and 141 days.
4. According to the petitioner, the petitioner’s illness of Catatonic Schizophrenia, suffered by him is attributable and aggravated by military service. Therefore, the petitioner preferred a Disability pension claim before the Pension Sanctioning Authority before the 3rd and 4th respondent on 05.03.1999. The said claim was rejected by the 3rd respondent on 27.07.1999. The petitioner sent a legal notice dated 25.09.1999 to the 5th respondent seeking for disability pension against the order of rejection passed by the 3rdrespondent. However, the 5th respondent, by proceedings dated 07.01.2000, opined that the petitioner’s disability was neither attributable nor aggravated by military service.
5. The petitioner again submitted an application seeking for disability pension to the 2nd respondent and the same was forwarded to the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent rejected the said claim on 14.02.2008. Yet another application to 2nd respondent was again rejected by 5th respondent on 15.04.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred various representations to the respondent on 13.11.2009 and 18.06.2015 to the Defence Pension Adalat, Tiruchirapalli, and Assistant Director of ex-Servicemen’s Welfare, Pudukottai, for grant of disability pension and the same was forwarded to the 5th respondent. However, the same was rejected by the 5th respondent.
6. The petitioner filed an application dated 08.02.2017 under Right to information Act, 2005 requesting to furnish Medical Board Proceedings. The 5th respondent furnished the same. The petitioner made an application dated 23.06.2017 for grant of disability pension and the same was aga
The disability pension is contingent upon demonstrable evidence that a disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service, with the medical board's findings being central to determining ....
Disability pension claims require proof of service-related causation; mere diagnosis does not suffice without evidence of attribution to military service per applicable regulations.
The court held that the Medical Board's opinion on disability attribution is final unless contradicted by substantial evidence, emphasizing the need for a clear connection between the disability and ....
Disability pension claims must establish a direct connection to military service, with the burden of proof on the claimant, especially under new regulations.
Disability pension claims must be substantiated by evidence proving the disability's connection to military service, as medical board opinions are final unless contradicted.
The court established that the burden of proof regarding the attribution of disability to military service lies with the employer, and the presumption of sound health at enlistment is significant in ....
The court established that the burden of proof for disability pension claims lies with the employer, and the absence of evidence linking the condition to military service justifies the rejection of t....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
