Supreme Court Dismisses Government Appeals on Disability Pension
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday dismissed a group of approximately 271 appeals and special leave petitions filed by the Union government. These cases involved the grant of the disability element of service pension to numerous retired army officers, as seen in Union of India v. Col NC Isaac. A bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe delivered the judgment, addressing the government’s challenges to the decisions made by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) and various High Courts, which had previously awarded relief to the retired army personnel.
Background of the Case
The retired officers initially turned to the AFT and High Courts after Release Medical Boards (RMBs) from the army classified their disabilities as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service (NANA). This classification implied that the army was not obligated to pay disability pensions, as the disabilities were deemed unrelated to military service. The AFT and High Courts reversed such classifications, granting relief to the claimants, which prompted the Central government to challenge these rulings in the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Rationale
On September 15, the Supreme Court recognized that the Entitlement Rules of 2008 eliminated a previous assumption that a person is in good health upon commencing military service. However, the Court clarified that this update does not inherently suggest that a disability discovered at the time of an officer’s departure from the army is unconnected to military service. The Court dismissed the Union’s contention that the 2008 rules had fundamentally altered the beneficial framework established by the Entitlement Rules of 1982.
The Court further emphasized that the burden of proof to establish that an officer’s disability is not attributable to or aggravated by military service remains with the employer, which is the army in this case. “The mere addition of a causal requirement and a removal of the presumption that when a member joins service healthy, and, if he leaves with a disability, it ought to be attributable to military service, does not, by itself, change the core scheme of the Entitlement Rules 1982 because the other beneficial provisions broadly remain untouched,” the Court remarked.
However, the Court stipulated that if a claimant approaches the relevant forum 15 or more years after discharge, retirement, invalidment, or release, this burden shifts to the claimant. Additionally, the Court stressed the importance of closely examining the findings of Medical Boards in such matters, urging tribunals to carefully review the Board’s opinions and reasons before deciding on the grant of disability pensions.
More Read
Conclusion and Recommendations
In the present batch of appeals, the Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the orders under challenge and dismissed the Union’s appeals on both delay and merit grounds. The Court expressed concern about the ongoing litigation in such cases, noting that many appeals were already dismissed due to being time-barred. It underscored the considerable number of appeals rejected at the first appellate stage, highlighting information obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which revealed that out of 2,997 appeals before the First Appellate Authority, nearly 2,855 claims were rejected, with only 142 accepted. Similarly, before the Second Appellate Authority, 439 out of 456 appeals were rejected, with only 17 accepted.
The Court referenced the 2015 Raksha Mantri Committee of Experts report, which recommended the withdrawal of such appeals against disabled soldiers. It noted that this recommendation had “not been faithfully implemented,” despite the Ministry of Defence’s acceptance of it. The judgment emphasized, “Appeals such as these are filed and continue to be filed, even after the Ministry of Defence accepted the Committee’s recommendation for withdrawal of this class of litigation.”
Attorney General R Venkataramani represented the Union government, while advocates like Sudhanshu Pandey, MV Mukunda, among others, appeared for the respondents and ex-servicemen involved in the case.
