Army's Burden To Prove Illness Which Arose During Service Wasn't Service-Related : Supreme Court Allows Disability Pension

The Supreme Court directed that disability pension be granted to the veteran army personnel who was discharged after being diagnosed with schizophrenia (a form of mental illness) while in service.

Observing that disability pension is a beneficial provision under the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, and must be interpreted liberally, the bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and N. Kotiswar Singh allowed the army personnel's appeal against the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT).

The Court held that since the Army discharged the appellant on the grounds of schizophrenia, the burden of proving the nature and extent of his disability rested with the Army. It further stated that denying disability pension without providing reasons is impermissible.

Briefly put, the Appellant was enlisted in the Indian Army on November 17, 1988, and was discharged on March 30, 1998, after being diagnosed with schizophrenia during service. A Medical Board, however, concluded that his condition was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, branding it as a constitutional (hereditary) disorder. Acting on this opinion, the Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions) rejected his claim for disability pension, and this decision was later upheld by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Kochi.

Following this, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court by the Appellant arguing that the medical board's opinion was arbitrary as it lacked reasons before arriving at the decision to deny disability pension to him. Further, he contended that since he was medically fit at enrolment and the disease arose during service, the burden shifts to the authorities to prove it was not service-related which was not discharged by them.

Finding force in the Appellant's contention, the judgment authored by Justice Singh observed that since the Appellant was deemed medically fit at the time of enrolment and the onset of schizophrenia occurred during his service, it held that the burden of proof shifted to the authorities to demonstrate that the illness was not service-related.

“It is also to be noted that this is not a case where the appellant had applied for discharge of service on account of suffering from Schizophrenia. It was the authority themselves who after observing his condition decided to discharge the appellant from service after obtaining the opinion of the Medical Board. In such a situation, where the serviceman himself had not applied for discharge, but has been discharged by the authority, the onus of proving the disability and grounds of denying disability pension would lie heavily on the authority. Since it is the statutory requirement that the opinion of the Medical Board is to be the basis of the discharge, in our view, if the opinion of Medical Board is devoid of reasons, the act of the authority based on mere opinion sans reasons can certainly be questioned.”

The Medical Board failed to discharge this burden, offering no evidence that the condition predated enrolment or that it was not aggravated by the stress and rigour of military life, the court said.

“Assigning reasons for the opinion of the Medical Board in the present case also becomes imperative and salutary for the reason that while the appellant had pleaded that at the time of entry in the service, this disease was not detected, but only after about 5 (five) years of service and hence, as per rules also, it will be deemed that it arose while in service, the Medical Board gave the opinion that it was a constitutional personality disorder. The opinion of the Medical Board is, thus, inconsistent with the plea of the appellant. Hence, it was incumbent upon the Medical Board to assign reasons as to why the disease is to be treated as a constitutional personality disorder which could not be detected at the time of entry in service and as the onset of the disease was only in 1993, which is after about 5 (five) years of entry in service. Without there being any reasons given by the Medical Board for their opinion that it was a constitutional personality disorder, we are afraid, it would be unfair to the appellant that such an opinion of the Medical Board is to be taken as final and binding to deprive any service benefit to the appellant.”, the court said.

“Accordingly, we hold that the order of discharge of the appellant and denial of disability pension to him based on a medical opinion without providing full reasons to support the opinion cannot be said to be valid.”, the court held.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Also Read- Invalided Soldier Presumed To Be Disabled Due To Military Service; Entitled To Disability Pension : Supreme Court

Case Title: RAJUMON T.M. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 546

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s): Mr. Thomas P. Joseph, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tom Joseph, AOR Dr. Duvvada Ramesh, Adv.

For Respondent(s): Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Shashank Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Shyam Gopal, Adv. Ms. Rekha Pandey, Adv. Mr. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv. Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv. Mr. Kartik Dey, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Akshat Kaushik, Adv.