The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that soldiers are presumed to be in good health at the time of enlistment, and any later health issues are assumed to be caused or worsened by military service unless proven otherwise. The Court directed the Union of India to grant disability pension to a retired soldier, highlighting that the employer must provide strong evidence to deny such claims.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
CHANDIGARH: The Punjab & Haryana High Court reiterated a crucial principle concerning military personnel: a soldier is assumed to be in good physical and mental health at the time of joining the armed forces unless stated otherwise. Any health issues that arise later are presumed to be related to or worsened by military service.
A Division Bench, comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepi Sharma, emphasized the responsibility of the employer, in this case, the Union of India, to provide clear evidence if the disability is not linked to military service.
The Court highlighted,
“The benefit of doubt must go to the disabled soldier.”
The Court made it clear that the employer must present strong evidence to prove that the disability is neither caused by nor aggravated by military service. It stated:
“Furthermore, though therein a presumption is assigned vis-à-vis the sound physical and mental health of any member of the defence establishment concerned, especially when at the stage of his becoming enrolled, there is no note or record about his becoming beset with any disease. Moreover, though therein there is also a further presumption, that when any deterioration thereto, thus occurs subsequently, thereby the said happening of deterioration(s) or onsetting of any disease, rather is to be presumed to be a sequel of his rendering service as a member of the defence establishment.”
This ruling came during the hearing of a plea filed by Krishna Nandan Mishra, who joined the Defence Security Corps (DSC) in August 1997. After over a decade of service, he was discharged in August 2007 due to being placed in a low medical category.
At the time of discharge, the Release Medical Board diagnosed him with “CAD IWMI-SVD 1-24,” assessing his disability at 30%. However, the board concluded that his condition was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Consequently, his claim for a disability pension was rejected.
The rejection of Mishra’s disability pension claim was upheld twice—in March 2009 and December 2010. Frustrated by these decisions, Mishra approached the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), challenging the denial. Unfortunately, in April 2014, the tribunal dismissed his application, stating that his health condition was unrelated to his military duties.
Dissatisfied with the tribunal’s decision, Mishra filed a writ petition with the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The High Court scrutinized the medical board’s assessment process and found it lacking. The judges noted that the assessment failed to delve deeply into the origin, progression, or possible aggravation of his condition.
The Court underscored that such inadequate evaluations go against the guidelines outlined in the “Guide to Medical (Military Pension), 2002,” and the “Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982.” It referred to the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Dharamvir Singh Vs Union of India, which established that any health deterioration after enrollment must be presumed service-related unless disproven with solid evidence.
The Court further stated:
“Any subsequent deterioration in health must be attributed to service unless expressly rebutted by cogent evidence.”
It also clarified that even if a disability arises during a peace-area posting, it can still be considered service-related unless regulations explicitly exclude it.
The High Court overturned the Armed Forces Tribunal’s order and directed the Union of India to process Krishna Nandan Mishra’s disability pension within three months. Additionally, the Court instructed the inclusion of “rounding-off benefits,” in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India v. Ram Avtar.
Advocates Navdeep Singh, Roopan Atwal, and Srishti Sharma represented the petitioner, Krishna Nandan Mishra.
Panel Counsel Narender Kumar Vashist appeared for the respondent.
CASE TITLE:
Krishna Nandan Mishra Versus Union of India and Others.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Pension
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
