Disability pension claims require proof of service-related causation; mere diagnosis does not suffice without evidence of attribution to military service per applicable regulations.

ORDER :

G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.

Embittered by an order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal rejecting the claim of the petitioner seeking disability pension, the present writ petition is filed.

2.1. The nub of the matter runs thus: The petitioner retired from the Indian Army on 31.5.2021 after rendering service of 34 years, 5 months and 4 days. Prior to his superannuation, on 28.5.2021, the Release Medical Board assessed the disability of the applicant due to Hypertension at 30% for life, but opined that the disability is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. The decision of the Release Medical Board denying disability pension was communicated on 20.9.2021.

2.2. Questioning the said order, the petitioner preferred a First Appeal before the Appellate Committee on First Appeals claiming that the petitioner is suffering hypertension owing to adverse service conditions with stressful job nature and, therefore, he is entitled to claim disability pension. The First Appeal was rejected on 10.2.2022 holding that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.

2.3. The Second Appeal preferred by the petitioner as against the aforesaid order was rejected by order dated 19.7.2022, affirming the order passed in the first appeal.

2.4. Assailing the order dated 19.7.2022, the petitioner approached the Armed Forces Tribunal, which, by order dated 24.10.2024, upheld the orders passed by the authorities below. Hence, the present writ petition.

3.1. Mr.Ram Pranav, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that the petitioner had served over 34 years in the Indian Army and was consistently assigned to high pressure and demanding appointments throughout his service and the Release Medical Board, in its report, has expressly acknowledged the adverse impact of stress and strain on the petitioner’s medical condition and the observations of the Officiating Deputy Commandant and the Chief Instructor, as referred to in the report of the Release Medical Board, unequivocally affirm that the petitioner’s duties entailed severe and exceptional stress and strain, but the said observations were not given due credence while rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

3.2. It is further submitted that the twin conditions delineated in Rule 10(b) of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 2008 that the disease had arisen during the period of military service; and that the disease had been caused by the condition of his employment are satisfied and, therefore, denial of disability pension to the petitioner is unjust and unreasonable and is far removed from the settled proposition of law propounded by the Supreme Court to the effect that disabilities arising during service are to be presumed as attributable to or aggravated by military service unless proved otherwise. To buttress the said submission, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India , (2013) 7 SCC 316

3.3. Referring to Regulation 423(a) of the Regulations for the Medical Services of Armed Forces, 2010, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the purpose of determining whether the cause of a disability is or is not attributable to service, it is immaterial whether the cause giving rise to the disability occurred in an area declared to be field Service/Active Service area or under normal peace condition and, therefore, the petitioner, who was commanding a Battalion of recruit training at Lucknow during Covid 19, is eligible for disability pension.

3.4. To fortif