24 years in Army, stroke during service: Court upholds 75% disability pension for veteran
The Punjab and Haryana High Court was hearing a plea filed by the Centre challenging the order allowing the benefit of disability pension to a retired Army Naik.
The high court noted that at the time of enrolment, the man was medically examined and found fit with no indication of the disease that later resulted in his disability. (AI-generated image) Army news: Holding that a soldier who enters service in a medically fit condition is entitled to a presumption that a disease developed during service is attributable to or aggravated by military duty, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently upheld disability pension for a retired Army Naik who suffered an ischemic stroke after serving for 24 years.
A bench of Justices Harsimran Singh Sethi and Deepak Manchanda was hearing a plea filed by the Centre challenging the September 29, 2022, order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) allowing the benefit of disability pension to a retired Army Naik, Tarun Kaushal, from the day next to the date of his discharge from service, i.e. March 1, 2020.
“Once at the time of enrollment, respondent No. 1(Army veteran) was medically examined and was found to be fit in all respects, and it was only during his service period that respondent No.1 was found to be suffering from ‘Ischemic Stroke-Right MCA Territory’. That being so, the said disability has to be attributed to the military service, and the unsubstantiated report of the medical board cannot take away the right of respondent No.1 to claim the benefit of disability pension and that too, by rounding off the disability,” the May 27 order read.
Justices Harsimran Singh Sethi and Deepak Manchanda pronounced the order on May 27.
An ischemic stroke in the right middle cerebral artery (MCA) territory occurs when blood flow to a significant portion of the brain is blocked, potentially affecting movement, sensation and cognitive functions.
Dismissing the Centre’s challenge, the high court upheld the grant of disability pension and affirmed the Tribunal’s direction to round off the disability element from 70 per cent to 75 per cent, holding that an unsupported medical board opinion cannot deprive a soldier of pensionary benefits.
‘Benefit of rounding off granted’
- Referring to previous similar cases, the court found that in cases where Army personnel are found to be fit at the time of enrolment, and have later been found to be contracted with a disease, the same is presumed to have been aggravated by and attributable to military service.
- The court also found that in previous Supreme Court orders, it was held that an armed forces personnel is entitled to be granted the benefit of rounding off concerning disability pension, irrespective of the fact that he was invalidated out of service, or retired on attaining the age of superannuation or on completion of the tenure of his engagement.
- The court noted that the same is applicable if the Army personnel was found to be suffering from some disability which is attributable or aggravated by the military service.
‘24 years of service’
- It was placed on record that the veteran joined the Army on February 22, 1996, and served for 24 years before being discharged on February 29, 2020.
- The high court noted that at the time of enrolment, he was medically examined and found fit with no indication of the disease that later resulted in his disability. This fact formed the basis of the Armed Forces Tribunal’s decision to grant disability pension.
Arguments
Appearing for the Centre, senior panel counsel S K Sharma placed reliance upon the report of medical examination of the army veteran to contend that though the disability of ‘Ischemic Stroke-Right MCA Territory’ existed, the said disability was assessed to be “neither attributable to nor aggravated by the military service.”
Sharma added that they granted the benefit of disability pension to the Army veteran at the rate of 75 per cent, as against 70 per cent by the tribunal, by placing reliance upon similar previous judgments.
