Kerala High Court slams Centre’s ‘appeal in disguise’ to block retired Colonel’s disability pension

Justices Anil K Narendran and Muralee Krishna S said that there was no ground to hold that the judgment suffered from any error.

The bench added that the petitioners now raised certain contentions regarding the entitlement of the respondent to the disability element of pension in view of the opinion of the release medical board, and also against the rounding off of the disability to 50 per cent, since it was assessed as 20 per cent by the release medical board. It continued that from the judgment, it can be seen that this court considered those aspects in detail in the judgment.

Court’s findings

• In order to understand the circumstances that entitle the court to exercise its power of review, it would be appropriate to go through the provisions concerned as well as the law on the point laid down by the judgments of the apex court, as well as this court.
• Section 114 and Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 are the relevant provisions as far as the review of a judgment or order of a court is concerned.
• Section 114 of the CPC reads that any person considering himself aggrieved by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred.
• By a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or by a decision on a reference from a court of small causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order, and the court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.

Dispute over disability element of pension

The Union of India filed a petition seeking to review a May 2025 judgment that had dismissed a petition against a previous tribunal order in favour of a retired colonel. The colonel was discharged in year 2000.

Representing the Union of India, senior panel counsel T C Krishna submitted that the respondent was discharged from service at his own request, upon the release medical board assessing his disability at 20 per cent for three years, since the respondent was diagnosed with Type II Diabetes Mellitus.

He argued that the entitlement to the disability element of pension by the respondent is only if the illness was attributable to military service. He stated that since the Release Medical Board found that the illness of the respondent was not attributable to military service, the finding in the impugned judgment of this Court, in tune with the finding of the Tribunal, is an error apparent on the face of the record.

He vehemently submitted that the burden is upon the respondent to prove that the illness suffered by him is attributable to military service, especially when the opinion of the release medical board is otherwise.

On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent Gyothish Chandran and Ratheesh B submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned judgment.