Delhi High Court strongly rejected 300 Defence Ministry pleas against granting disability pensions to soldiers. Court said pension is soldiers’ right, not government favor.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court firmly rejected almost 300 petitions filed by the Ministry of Defence (MoD), which had challenged the orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) that gave disability pensions to soldiers.
A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur made it clear that these soldiers deserve disability pensions as a rightful recognition of their service-related injuries and not as a gift or favor.
The Court clearly said:
“It is not an act of generosity, but a rightful and just acknowledgement of the sacrifices endured by them, which manifest in the form of disabilities/disorders suffered during the course of their military service. Such pension ensures that a soldier who suffers injury or disability due to service conditions is not left without support and is able to live with financial security and dignity. It is a measure that upholds the State’s responsibility towards its soldiers, who have served the nation with courage and devotion.”
The Ministry of Defence had gone to court claiming that in these 300 cases, the medical issues faced by the soldiers were not caused by or made worse due to military service. Hence, the MoD argued that the soldiers should not get the disability element in their pensions.
Attorney General R Venkataramani appeared on behalf of the Ministry of Defence. He argued that earlier, it was assumed that a soldier was in good health when he joined the service unless a disability was noted during recruitment. However, he said this presumption no longer applies today.
But the High Court did not accept this reasoning. In its detailed order, the Court said that it is not correct to deny disability pensions just because the disability occurred while the soldier was posted at a peace location.
The judges expressed concern and said they were deeply hurt that soldiers were being denied their rightful pension for such reasons. The Court emphasized that even in peaceful postings, soldiers constantly face mental and emotional stress, which could lead to serious health issues.
The Court observed:
“Undisputably, even when not on the front lines or in hard areas, soldiers are aware that the threat is never far away. This environment, where danger is a constant reality for their peers and could become their own at any moment, creates a persistent state of mental and emotional strain that cannot be overlooked. Thus, military service, whether in peace locations or operational zones, inherently carries stress that may predispose Force personnel to medical conditions such as hypertension.”
It also said that the responsibility is on the Release Medical Board (RMB) to clearly prove that diseases like diabetes and hypertension were not related to military service. Just denying without good reasons is not acceptable.
The Court strongly stated:
“It must always be kept in view that the Armed Forces personnel, in defending this great nation from external threats, have to perform their duties in most harsh and inhuman weather and conditions, be it on far-flung corner of land, in terrains and atmosphere where limits of mans survival are tested, or in air or water, where again surviving each day is a challenge, away from the luxury of family life and comforts. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the RMB to furnish cogent and well-reasoned justification for their conclusions.”
The Court further said that denying pension based only on the location of the posting is not acceptable.
In the end, the Court rejected all the petitions filed by the Ministry of Defence and upheld the decisions made by the Armed Forces Tribunal.
The judges clearly said:
“Considering the limited scope of the writ jurisdiction in reviewing the orders of the learned Tribunal, no case has been made out warranting interference by this Court with the decision of the learned Tribunal.”
CASE TITLE:
Union Of India & Ors. vs Col. Balbir Singh (Retd).
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Disability Pension
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Soldiers
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
