Invaliding Out of Service Perforce Assumes Disability >20%, Attracts 50% Pension: Supreme Court on Army Disability Pension Rules - 2025-04-23

Legal News & Court Updates.

SC Rules in Favor of Ex-Serviceman, Holds Disability Leading to Invalidation Must Be Assumed Above 20%

"A soldier cannot be asked to prove that the disease was contracted by him on account of military service," the Court reiterated, setting aside the AFT's denial of disability pension.

New Delhi: In a significant ruling reinforcing the rights of armed forces personnel, the Supreme Court has held that when a member of the armed forces is invalided out of service, it must be assumed that their disability was found to be above 20%, thereby attracting a grant of 50% disability pension. A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan set aside orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) that had denied the disability element of pension to an ex-serviceman who was discharged in 1989 for a seizure disorder.

Case Background

The appellant was enrolled in the army in 1985 and was invalided out of service in August 1989 due to "generalized tonic clonic seizure." An Invaliding Medical Board (IMB) assessed his disability at less than 20% and opined that it was not attributable to or aggravated by military service. Consequently, he was granted only the service element of his pension, not the disability element.

Over the years, three separate Re-Survey Medical Boards consistently assessed his disability between 15-19% for life. The soldier contended that he was healthy at the time of joining and the disability arose after his posting at the high-altitude Siachen glacier. After his representations were rejected, he approached the Armed Forces Tribunal, which dismissed his application, focusing on the finding that his disability was below the 20% threshold. A subsequent review application was also dismissed, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

• Appellant's Counsel: Argued that the AFT had ignored binding Supreme Court precedents, including Dharamvir Singh (2013) and Rajbir Singh (2015) . The core legal principle is that if no disability is noted at the time of entry into service, any subsequent disability leading to discharge is presumed to be attributable to service. The onus is on the employer to rebut this presumption with cogent reasons, which was not done. It was further argued that the AFT wrongly fixated on the sub-20% assessment, ignoring government instructions (dated 31.01.2001) that removed the 20% minimum for invalidation cases post-1996 and provided for rounding up disability to 50%.

• Respondents' Counsel (Union of India): Maintained that the medical boards had correctly assessed the disability as less than 20% and not attributable to service, making the appellant ineligible for the disability element of the pension.

Court's Analysis and Legal Principles

The Supreme Court undertook a detailed examination of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, and the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982. The bench highlighted several key legal presumptions that govern such cases:

• Presumption of Sound Health (Rule 5): A member is presumed to be in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service unless a disability is noted at that time. Any subsequent deterioration is presumed to be due to service.
• Onus of Proof on Employer (Rule 9): The claimant is not required to prove entitlement. The benefit of any reasonable doubt must be given to the soldier.
• Disease Deemed to Arise in Service (Rule 14(b)): A disease leading to discharge is deemed to have arisen in service if no note of it was made at the time of entry. If a medical opinion holds otherwise, it must state clear reasons.

The Court heavily relied on its previous judgments, quoting from Dharamvir Singh and Rajbir Singh to emphasize that the burden to establish a disconnect between the disability and military service lies heavily upon the employer.

The judgment extracted a pivotal observation from *** Sukhvinder Singh Vs. Union of India (2014)***: > "Fourthly, wherever a member of the armed forces is invalided out of service, it perforce has to be assumed that his disability was found to be above twenty per cent. Fifthly , as per the extant Rules/Regulations, a disability leading to invaliding out of service would attract the grant of fifty per cent disability pension."

The Court noted that the AFT had failed to examine the crucial issue of whether the disability was attributable to service and instead erroneously focused only on the percentage of disability.

Final Judgment and Directions

Finding the AFT's orders "wholly unsustainable in law," the Supreme Court set them aside. The bench observed that the IMB itself had stated that no disability existed before the appellant entered service, thereby strengthening the presumption in his favor.

The Court directed the respondents to grant the disability element of the pension to the appellant at the rate of 50% with effect from 01.01.1996 for life . The arrears are to be paid with 6% per annum interest within three months.