Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 50241
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AMIT RAWAL, P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ
VETERAN SUBEDAR K U JOHN – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 33617 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V.K.SATHYANATHAN, VINOD K.C.
For the Respondents: SANJANA R.NAIR
The court mandated a re-assessment of a veteran's disability to establish if it is permanent, impacting the eligibility for lifelong disability pension.
Headnote:(A) Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 - Section 15 - Disability pension - Claim rejected on ground that disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by service - Tribunal partly allowed claim granting 30% pension for two years - Finding of Tribunal upheld, but further re-assessment of disability is ordered to ascertain its permanent status. (Paras 1-10)
(B) Claim for disability pension - Permanent disability and its assessment - The court ruled that there exists a necessity for a detailed medical assessment to determine the permanence of the applicant's disability prior to finalizing pension eligibility. (Paras 6-9)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was diagnosed with “Seronegative Polyarthritis” post his voluntary discharge. He contested his pension rejection, claiming new policy provisions. The Tribunal granted partial relief, assessing his disability at 30% for two years.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's order upholding partial eligibility for disability pension at 30% was confirmed, with an additional mandate for a comprehensive medical re-assessment to evaluate the permanence of the disability.
Issues: Whether the applicant's disability is permanent and if he is thus entitled to disability pension for life.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity for evidence of permanent disability to qualify for lifelong pension benefits, necessitating a re-assessment board's intervention.
Result: Petition allowed in part.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's framing of legal issues and observation on service-related disability (Para 1 , 5) |
| 2. assessment of disability and initial rejection (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. tribunal granting partial relief on pension claim (Para 4) |
| 4. arguments regarding permanency of the disability (Para 6 , 8) |
| 5. need for re-assessment of disability (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J This writ petition is filed by the applicant in O.A.No.23 of 2022 on the files of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi, challenging the order dated 15.09.2023, allowing the claim of the applicant only partly.
2. The facts in brief, as are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition, are as follows:
The applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army on 21.05.1968 and was promoted up to the rank of Subedar. He was discharged from service at his own request on 31.10.1993. Due to the stress and strain of Army service, the applicant was diagnosed with the invaliding disease “Seronegative Polyarthritis”. At the time of discharge, the Release Medical Board assessed the disability “Seronegative Polyarthritis” at 30% for two years, but held that it was neither attributable to nor aggravated by service. Consequently, the claim of the applicant for disability pension was rejected. Even though the applicant challenged it, the same ended in dismissal. By Annexures A3 and A4, the applicant was informed that his claim for disability pension was rejected since, he has been discharged from service on his own request. Subsequently, the applicant came to know that Army personnel, who had retired at their own request, are also entitled for disability pension as per a new policy issued by the Government. On that premise, the applicant again made a request claiming disability pension. But it was rejected by stating that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by service.
3. Aggrieved by the rejection of the claim for disability pension, the applicant approached the Armed Forces Tribunal by filing O.A.No.23 of 2022. In the O.A., the applicant prayed for a direction to sanction and pay disability pension to him for life, with rounding off benefit, along with interest.
4. The Tribunal, after considering the materials on record and hearing both sides, allowed the O.A in part. It found that the applicant is entitled to get disability pension at 30% for two years from the date of his discharge and directed respondents 3 and 4 to issue a Corrigendum PPO accordingly.
5. Heard Adv. Sathyanathan.V.K, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Adv. Sanjana.R.Nair, the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though the disease “Seronegative Polyarthritis” was assessed at 30% for a period of two years, the disease is one of permanent nature and not curable. He argued that the petitioner was released in Permanent Low Medical Category and once a disability is declared as permanent and attributable/aggravated by service, the disability pension is payable for life.
7. Per contra, the learned Central Government Counsel supported the impugned order and contended that there are no materials to find that the disability suffered by the petitioner is a permanent one.
8. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the Release Medical Board has assessed the disability of the petitioner “Seronegative Polyarthritis” at 30% for two years. Even though the claim of the petitioner for disability pension was rejected by the authorities on the ground that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by service and on the ground that the petitioner was discharged from service on his own request on compassionate ground, the Tribunal did not approve the findings. The Tribunal, after overruling these objections, found that the disability suffered by the applicant is aggravated by his long military service and that even though the applicant was discharged from Army service on his own re
