Disability Attributable To Military Service; Burden To Rebut Lies On Employer : Delhi HC

Background Facts

The respondent, Ex-Warrant Officer served in the Indian Air Force for about 37 years and 11 months. At the time of his joining, he had submitted a self-declaration stating that he was not suffering from any disability, including Primary Hypertension. During the course of his service, he was later diagnosed with Primary Hypertension. Therefore, he was released from service in a Low Medical Category. The Release Medical Board (RMB) assessed his disability at 30% but opined that it was not attributable to military service. It was noted that its onset had taken place at a peace station and had no close time association with stress or strain of field or operational postings. However, his Commanding Officer's certificate clearly recorded that the disability was not due to any negligence or misconduct on his part.

The respondent thereafter approached the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) by filing an application for grant of disability pension. The AFT allowed his claim. It was directed by AFT to grant the disability pension on the basis that the disability had arisen during his long service in the Air Force.

Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the Union of India filed the writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the grant of disability pension.

It was submitted by the petitioners that the Armed Forces Tribunal committed a grave error in granting disability pension to the respondent despite the clear finding of the Release Medical Board (RMB). The RMB had noted that the onset of Primary Hypertension occurred while the respondent was posted at a peace station. It had no association with stress or strain of field, high altitude, or counter-insurgency operational areas.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondent that the ailment was diagnosed after he had rendered more than 37 years of service in the Indian Air Force. It was further submitted that the Release Medical Board itself had assessed his disability at 30% and nowhere recorded that the disease existed prior to his joining. The Commanding Officer had also certified that the disability was not due to any negligence or misconduct on his part.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the court that the respondent had served the Indian Air Force for 38 years, and there was no record of Primary Hypertension at the time of his joining. His own declaration as well as the medical records confirmed that he was not suffering from any ailment prior to enrolment. It was noted by the court that in such cases, the burden shifts upon the employer to establish that the disease is not attributable to or aggravated by service. It was further observed that the Release Medical Board had merely stated that the onset of hypertension was at a peace station and therefore not connected with military service. However, no positive reason or independent cause was identified by the Medical Board to justify the finding of RMB. It was also observed that the Commanding Officer's certificate also confirmed that the respondent was not at fault due to any act of negligence or misconduct.

The case of Bijender Singh v. UOI was relied upon by the court wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that “a member of the armed forces is presumed medically fit at entry unless noted otherwise. Any subsequent disability is presumed attributable to or aggravated by military service, and the burden lies on the employer to disprove this. If the Medical Board claims the disease was undetectable at entry, it must give reasons. Disability pension provisions are beneficial and must be interpreted liberally; a soldier need not prove that the disease was caused or aggravated by service. If no prior disease was recorded, it is presumed service-related.”

It was held by the Court that disability pension is a beneficial provision and has to be construed liberally in favor of the soldier. It was concluded by the court that no error of law was committed by the Armed Forces Tribunal. Therefore, the findings of the AFT granting disability pension to the respondent were affirmed by the court.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Name : W.P.(C) 6188/2025

Case No. : Union Of India And Ors vs Ex Wo Om Prakash Retd

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1044

Counsel for the Petitioners : Vivek Sharma, SPC with Prerna Singh