‘Stress of military service’: Why Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court upheld this ex-Army man’s disability pension

The Centre, through the Ministry of Defence and others, had moved the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on the ground that the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) had failed to consider the report of the Release Medical Board (RMB), and no connection was established by the officer between his disability and military service.

The bench said that the opinion of the RMB, which assessed the officer’s disability needs determination. (Image is enhanced using AI)

“It is a foregone conclusion that the disability ‘Primary Hypertension’, which the officer was found suffering at the time of his discharge from Army service, is aggravated by military service,” the order of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court said.

Disability pension ‘rejected’ twice

• The Army officer was enrolled on June 22, 1995, in a fit state of health and discharged on June 30, 2019, in a low medical category.
• Before his release from duty, he was examined by the RMB on March 2, 2019, which assessed the disabilities, primary hypertension at 30 per cent and impaired fasting glucose at 15-19 per cent, for life. 
• The RMB assessed the composite disabilities suffered by the officer at 40 per cent. However, the first disability was regarded as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, and the second disability was declared to have been aggravated by military service.
• His claim for the grant of disability pension was rejected vide letter dated February 1, 2020.
• The first and the second appeals preferred by the officer against the rejection of his claim of disability pension, too, were rejected.
• He filed an application before the AFT seeking, among other things, a direction to the Centre to grant disability pension in his favour with effect from June 1, 2019, for life with the benefit of rounding off.
• The Centre, however, opposed it on the ground that since the net assessment for the grant of disability pension was below 20 per cent for life, the respondent was not entitled to disability pension.
•  The AFT held that the officer was entitled to disability pension at 50 per cent as against 40 per cent for life, but arrears were restricted to three years preceding the date of filing of the application.
  .

‘State’s burden to prove disentitlement’

• The opinion of the RMB, which assessed the officer’s disability needs determination, whether it can be relied upon to justify the disentitlement of the Army personnel to the disability element of pension in respect of his service.
• It needs to be noted that the officer, having been discharged for disablement in the year 2019, is covered by the 2008 regulations read with the 2008 Entitlement Rules.
• Rule 1(b) (defines disability) of 2008, Entitlement Rules, the Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pension), 2008, as amended from time to time, is required to be read with the said Rules.
• The medical record manifests that, as far as disability “Impaired Fasting Glucose” is concerned, the same has been regarded as aggravated by military service.
• Concerning the disability “Primary Hypertension”, it clearly transpires beyond any shadow of doubt that the state has the burden to prove disentitlement on the ground of absence of causal connection between the disability and the military service.
• The one-line opinion by the medical board in respect of the disability concerning its attributability to or aggravation by military service is not a substitute for clear, unambiguous and cogent medical reasons required to disentitle the personnel from disability pension
• A reading para from GMO, 2008, makes it abundantly clear that disablement on account of hypertension appears, service compulsion has caused aggravation, and must be considered. 
• The GMO, 2008, mandates that the medical authorities must clearly opine as to whether the disability which the individual has been found to have at the time of his release, which apparently has arisen during service, became worse in service or not.
• The medical authorities are also required to consider the entire service career of the individual to find out if any long and frequent spells of service in the field or operational area have created a stressful situation, thus aggravating the primary hypertension. 
• The judgment passed by the AFT is perfectly legal and does not call for any interference by us in the exercise of our extraordinary writ jurisdiction.