After 30-year fight, court steps in for Army soldier denied disability pension over eye condition

Justices Sindhu Sharma and Shahzad Azeem upheld AFT’s order in favour of a former Army Soldier.

‘Respondent developed eye condition’

• The respondent had joined the Indian Army on July 23, 1977, and during his service, he developed an eye condition called Hypermetropic Amblyopia (right eye), which was detected in 1991 while he was posted in Namkum.
• He was placed in low medical category ‘CEE’ (temporary) with effect from December 11, 1991, and later downgraded to permanent low medical category ‘CEE’. 
• The initial medical board recorded that the disability was contracted during service and not within the control of the respondent. 
• Owing to his permanent low medical category, the respondent was discharged from service on December 31, 1993, under the Rules of the Army Rules, 1954.
• He was granted service pension with effect from January 1, 1994.
• However, the Release Medical Board assessed his disability at 15-19 per cent for two years and opined that it was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service (NANA).
• Consequently, his claim for disability pension was rejected by the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) or PCDA (P), Allahabad, on December 13, 1994, and his first appeal was also rejected on November 1, 1996. 

• Subsequently, after obtaining relevant documents through RTI, the respondent submitted a demand notice, which was rejected on December 28, 2018.
• He then filed an original application before the Armed Forces Tribunal, which was disposed of on March 27, 2019, with directions to conduct a Re-Survey Medical Board (RSMB). 
• The RSMB, conducted on February 22, 2020, assessed the respondent’s disability at 20 per cent for life.
• Despite the reassessment, the  PCDA (P), Allahabad again rejected his claim on September 29, 2021, on the ground that the disability was not attributable to or aggravated by military service. 
• The respondent challenged it before the AFT, and on May 29, 2023, his application was allowed, and he was granted relief.
• The Army authorities challenged the AFT’s order, stating that under the Directorate General Armed Forces Medical Services (DGAFMS) policy dated May 14, 2020, the intervening period was to be covered under the previous medical board; and the respondent was not entitled to the disability element of disability pension. 

Key questions before AFT

• The tribunal considered the case on the following framed questions and decided in favour of the respondent:
  a) Whether the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions), Allahabad has authority to overrule the opinion of RSMB concerning the disability?
  b) Whether the applicant is entitled to the benefit of rounding off the disability element of disability pension?
• The tribunal found that the Review Medical Board’s reason for denying disability pension to the respondent was cryptic, unconvincing and incomplete, as the respondent had joined the Army in 1977 and had developed eye disability in 1991, after his 14 years of service.
• Reiterating a Supreme Court precedent, the tribunal noted that the burden of proof lies with the employee to establish non-entitlement of the person for disability pension. 

‘Pension denied lacks adequate reasoning’

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that the later conclusion denying pension, despite the reassessment by the review medical board, lacked adequate reasoning and did not inspire confidence. 

Rejecting the Army authorities’ challenge to the tribunal’s order in the respondent’s favour, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court upheld the AFT’s finding that there was no error concerning the attributability of the disability.

Army discharged him for schizophrenia, denied disability pension

Recently, in another case, emphasising that social security legislation always has to be interpreted liberally and beneficially, the Kerala High Court has dismissed a plea by the Centre while upholding an Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) order that granted disability pension to the widow of a late Army man who was discharged in 1979 due to schizophrenia.

A division bench of Justices K Natarajan and Johnson John was dealing with a plea of the Centre challenging the AFT order on the grounds that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.

“It is well settled that when social security legislation is being interpreted, it always has to be interpreted liberally with a beneficial interpretation and has to be given the widest possible meaning which the language permits, and if a word in the statute is capable of two meanings, i.e., one which would preserve the benefits and one which would not, then the former is to be adopted,” the Kerala High Court said on May 26.