Law Updates Made Simple.

Beyond the 'Lifestyle' Label: High Court Shifts Burden of Proof in Disability Pension Claims

In a significant ruling for military personnel, the High Court of Kerala has overturned an order from the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), reinforcing the principle that the military establishment cannot brush aside disability pension claims with vague assertions of "lifestyle disorders."

The bench, comprising Justices K. Natarajan and Johnson John, clarified that for claims filed within 15 years of release or discharge, the primary burden of proof to disprove a disability’s connection to service lies with the government, not the soldier.

The Case Background

Balamurali Krishna M, an Army veteran with over 17 years of service, approached the court after the AFT denied his disability pension. Upon his discharge in 2021, the Release Medical Board (RMB) had assessed him with primary hypertension and obesity, resulting in a 33.5% composite disability.

The RMB, however, dismissed these as neither "attributable to nor aggravated by military service," labeling them as lifestyle issues. The AFT upheld this rejection, citing a lack of statutory presumption in the petitioner's favor.

Arguments from the Frontlines

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the Tribunal misinterpreted Rule 7 of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 2008 . They contended that "ordinarily," as used in the rule, does not absolve the Department of its duty to prove the absence of a causal link between service conditions and the onset of disease—especially for claims made within the 15-year window before service records are destroyed.

The respondents argued that the medical board’s opinion was definitive and that given the nature of the disabilities (hypertension and obesity), there was no evidence of stress or strain during the petitioner’s peace-time posting.

Judicial Scrutiny: Stress Isn’t Just for the Frontline

The High Court’s analysis relied on a robust string of precedents, including the recent decision in * Union of India and others v. Bhaskaran *. The Court emphasized that for claims raised within 15 years, the "onus of proof will be primarily on the Department."

Furthermore, the Court addressed the recurring habit of denying pensions by categorizing diseases as "lifestyle disorders." Citing the Delhi High Court ’s ruling in Col. Balbir Singh (Retd.) , the judges noted:

> "Even in Peace Stations, military service is inherently stressful due to a combination of factors such as strict discipline, long working hours, limited personal freedom, and constant readiness... a mere statement that a disease is a lifestyle disorder cannot be a sufficient reason to deny the grant of Disability Pension."

Key Observations

The judgment clarifies several vital principles regarding the duty of the state:

• On the burden of proof: "The intention of the rule makers regarding claims made within 15 years, discernible from the language employed, is that the onus will continue to be primarily on the Department."
• On medical objectivity: "The denial of disability pension based on a medical opinion without providing full reasons to support the opinion cannot be said to be valid."
• On the nature of military life: "Military service, whether in peace locations or operational zones, inherently carries stress that may predispose Force personnel to medical conditions such as hypertension."
• On judicial interpretation: "When social security legislations are being interpreted, it always has to be interpreted liberally with a beneficial interpretation."

Implications for the Future

By setting aside the AFT order, the Kerala High Court has ensured that veterans are not met with a "cast-iron" refusal based on superficial medical assessments. The respondents have been ordered to issue a corrigendum to the Pension Payment Order (PPO) granting the pension within three months, failing which arrears will attract 7% interest.

This decision serves as a powerful reminder to the military establishment that "lifestyle condition" is a flawed defense if it is not supported by documented, individual-specific medical evidence. For veterans, this establishes a more equitable framework for seeking the benefits they earned through years of service.