Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 1131
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Sanjeev Kumar, Sanjay Parihar, JJ
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Nikku Ram – Respondent
WP(C) No.893/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vikas Sharma
For the Respondents: B.S.Sarmal
The burden to disprove a causal connection between service and disability lies with the employer. Medical board opinions must provide clear, cogent reasons for denying a pension, and failure to account for stressful service conditions recognized to aggravate specific diseases entitles the claimant to the benefit.
Headnote:(A) Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008 (Part-1) - Regulation 53 - Entitlement Rules, 2008 - Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pension), 2008 - Clause 43 - Disability pension - Attributability and aggravation - Burden of proof to establish disentitlement lies with the employer. (Paras 6, 8, 11, 15)
(B) Medical Opinion - Scope of Judicial Review - While medical board opinions are expert determinations, they must be supported by clear, cogent, and unambiguous reasoning - In the absence of such reasoning, particularly ignoring established guidelines regarding post-service medical onset during stress conditions, the opinion is subject to judicial scrutiny. (Paras 8(ii), 8(iii), 14)
(C) Welfare Measures - Interpretation - Rules governing disability benefits for service personnel constitute welfare measures and must be interpreted liberally in favour of the claimant - Any ambiguity in medical assessment should favor the pensioner. (Para 8(i))
Facts of the case:
The respondent was enrolled in service in a physically fit condition and was subsequently discharged due to a medical ailment. The medical board assessed the disability as not attributable to nor aggravated by service. Consequently, the claim for a disability pension was rejected. The respondent successfully challenged this before an adjudicatory forum, which held that the disability was aggravated by the service conditions. Aggrieved, the authorities filed the present petition.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the medical authority failed to provide cogent reasons for denying the pension. Given that the disability manifested during a period of service in high-altitude environments, which are explicitly recognized as aggravating factors for the diagnosed condition under official guidelines, the board's conclusion was found to be lacking. The employer failed to discharge the burden of proving that no causal connection existed between the service and the disability.
Issues: The main issues were whether the medical board's opinion regarding the non-attributability of a disease is conclusive and whether the burden of proof rests on the employer to establish the lack of causal connection between service conditions and the onset of a disability.
Ratio Decidendi: When a recruit is enrolled in a fit state, any subsequent disability is presumed to be connected to service unless the authorities produce clear, cogent, and unambiguous medical evidence to the contrary. If specific service, such as deployment in stressful environments, is recognized to cause or aggravate an underlying condition, a medical board failing to address these factors cannot justify the denial of a pension.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the legal proceedings, service history, and initial aft decision outcome. (Para 1 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. summary of conflicting arguments regarding the finality of medical board opinions. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. final confirmation of the aft order and dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 4 , 16) |
| 4. governing principles for disability pension, burden of proof, and regulatory frameworks. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. application of para 43 of gmo 2008 to determine aggravation of primary hypertension. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Kumar “J”
1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Union of India and others seek to throw challenge to an order and judgment dated 16th May, 2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench Srinagar at Jammu [“AFT”] in OA No.127 of 2022 titled Ex Nk Nikku Ram v. Union of India and others, whereby the AFT has allowed the OA filed by the respondent and set aside the impugned orders, whereby the respondent’s claim of disability pension was rejected. The disability of the respondent has been declared aggravated by Army service and, accordingly, the respondent was held entitled to disability pension @ 50% as against 30% for life from the next date of his discharge. Reliance has been placed by the AFT on Dhahramvir Singh v. Union of India , (2013) 7 SCC 316 and Union of India v. Ram Avtar , 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1761.
2. The impugned judgment of the AFT is assailed by the petitioners on the ground that the AFT has failed to consider that the disability of the respondent had been assessed by the Release Medical Board as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. No causal connection has been established by the respondent between his disability and military service. The AFT also did not appreciate that the medical board is an expert body and its opinion is entitled to be given due weight, value and credence.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would support the judgment passed by the AFT. It is stated that the AFT has taken care of all aspects of the matter.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by the AFT is perfectly legal and does not call for any interference by us in the exercise of our extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
5. The facts which are not in dispute are that the respondent was enrolled in Indian Army on 7th March, 2003 in a fit state of health and discharged on 31st March, 2021 in low medical category before completion of his terms of engagement as no alternative appointment was available. Before discharge the respondent was brought before a duly constituted Release Medical Board held on 04.03.2021, which assessed the disability incurred by the respondent “Primary Hypertension” @ 30% for life, however, regarded the same as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Respondent’s claim for grant of disability pension was, accordingly, rejected by the petitioners vide letter dated 20.07.2021 The first appeal preferred by the respondent against rejection of his claim of disability pension was rejected.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed OA No. 127 of 2022 before the AFT seeking inter alia a direction to the petitioners herein to grant disability pension in favour of the respondent with the benefit of rounding off with effect from 01.04.2021 for life. The OA was contested by the petitioners herein on the ground that since the invaliding disease was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, hence as per Regulation 53 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008 (Part-1), the respondent was not entitled to disability pension. It was submitted that the opinion of the Medical Board, being an expert body, was accepted and must be respected by courts as well.
7. The AFT having considered the OA in the light of rival contentions of the parties and having regar
