The Delhi High Court criticized the denial of disability pensions to soldiers, emphasizing their hardships in extreme conditions. The court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal’s decision, directing the grant of disability pensions to two soldiers. It remarked that while civilians enjoy comfort, soldiers endure harsh conditions. The ruling reinforces the need for fair treatment of armed forces personnel.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court highlighted the significance of disability pensions for soldiers who endure the challenges of military life, affirming the awards of disability pensions to two servicemen.
Justices C Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul noted that the risk of illness and disability is an inherent part of serving in the military.
The Court stated,
“The bravest of soldiers is prone, given the conditions in which he serves the nation, to fall prey to bodily ailments which, at times, may be disabling in nature, rendering him unable to continue in military service. In such circumstances, the least that the nation can do, by way of recompense for the selfless service that the soldier has lent it, is to provide comfort and solace during the years that remain,”
The Court explained that provisions for financial benefits, such as disability pensions, have been established to support soldiers who experience illness or disability due to their service.
Additionally, the Court raised the question of whether the selfless service of soldiers can ever be adequately compensated.
The Court remarked,
“(John F Kennedy said) ‘Ask not what your country can do for you; ask for what you can do for your country.’ There are those of us who eulogize and revere these words, but stop there. Then there are those who make it part of their lives, and are willing to sacrifice their all for their country – who, while we sip our hot cappuccinos by the fireplace, are braving icy winds at the border, willing to lay down their lives at a moment’s notice. Can anything, that the nation, and we as its citizens, give to these true sons of the motherland, ever be too much?”
The Court was reviewing two appeals filed by the Union of India challenging the Armed Forces Tribunal’s (AFT) decisions to grant disability pensions to two soldiers.
One of the soldiers, Gawas Anil Madso, joined the army in 1985 and was discharged in 2015 after being diagnosed with Type II Diabetes Mellitus. A release medical board (RMB) determined he would have a 20 percent disability for life but ruled he was not eligible for a disability pension.
The Court disagreed with this assessment.
The Court stated,
“The RMB Report is completely bereft of reasons, as to why, when the respondent (Madso) admittedly became a sufferer of DM 34 years after induction in service, the DM could be regarded as not attributable to military service,”
While acknowledging that a service rule stipulates that a health condition arising during military service can not automatically be presumed to be caused by that service, the Court emphasized that the soldier should not bear the primary burden of proving the connection between their health condition and military service.
Also Read: Army Court-Martials 11 Soldiers for Leaking Engineers’ Diploma Entrance Exam Papers
The Court concluded that it is the responsibility of army authorities to demonstrate that the illness is not a result of military service. In Madso’s case, this was not accomplished.
The Court held,
“While we are not doctors, it is a matter of common knowledge that Diabetes is a disease which can be caused, and exacerbated, by stressful living conditions. The fact that the onset of the disease might have been while the officer was on a peace posting cannot, therefore, be determinative of the issue of whether the disease was, was not attributable to military service. In such a case, the RMB has a greater responsibility to identify the cause of the disease, so that a clear case, dissociating the disease and its onset, from the military service of the claimant officer, is established,”
As a result, the Court upheld the AFT’s decision to grant Madso a disability pension.
Similarly, the Court ruled in favor of Amin Chand, who joined the army in 2005 and was set to retire in 2020. Before his retirement, he was diagnosed with Peripheral Arterial Occlusive Disease in his right lower limb and assessed with a 20 percent disability.
He was also denied a disability pension, leading him to appeal to the AFT, which granted him relief.
The Court dismissed the Centre’s appeal against this ruling on March 27.
Regarding the RMB report that denied Chand’s disability pension, the Court stated,
“A non-speaking report, merely holding, without prelude or preface, that the disease, though it arose during the military service of the claimant, was not attributable to or aggravated by, military service, cannot suffice to deny him disability pension.”
Panel Counsel Jivesh Kumar Tiwari and advocate Samiksha represented the Union of India, while advocate US Maurya appeared for the soldiers.
Case Title: Union Of India & Ors. Vs Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso
Read Attachment