Benefit of doubt must go to disabled soldier for grant of disability pension: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court reaffirmed that an individual is presumed to be in sound physical and mental health at the time of military enlistment unless expressly noted otherwise, and any subsequent health deterioration is presumed to be caused or aggravated by service [Krishna Nandan Mishra Versus Union of India and Others]..A Bench comprising of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepi Sharma observed that benefit of doubt must go to disabled soldier and it is the employer's responsibility, in this case, the Union of India, to prove that the disability was not caused or worsened by military service. The Court noted employer must provide cogent evidence to establish that the disability is not attributable to or aggravated by service.“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,” the Court said..The Court was dealing with a plea filed by one Krishna Nandan Mishra, who was enrolled in the Defence Security Corps (DSC) in August 1997 and served for more than ten years before being discharged in August 2007. His discharge was primarily due to his placement in a low medical category as assessed by a Release Medical Board.At the time of discharge, the Release Medical Board diagnosed the petitioner with the condition “CAD IWMI-SVD 1-24” and assessed his disability at 30%. Despite this assessment, the board concluded that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.Based on the Medical Board's assessment, the petitioner's claim for disability pension was rejected by the competent authority. This rejection was upheld in two subsequent appeals in March 2009 and in December 2010..Dissatisfied with the outcome, the petitioner filed an application before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT/ tribunal), challenging the denial of his disability pension. However, the tribunal dismissed his application in April 2014, holding that his condition was not linked to his military service.Aggrieved by the tribunal’s decision, the petitioner approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court through a writ petition, seeking to overturn the dismissal of his claim and arguing that his disability was either attributable to or aggravated by his service in the DSC..After examining the process adopted by the Medical Board and the AFT, the High Court observed that the medical assessment lacked a detailed inquiry into the genesis, progression or potential aggravation of the petitioner’s condition. The judgment emphasized that such superficial assessments contravened the principles outlined in the “Guide to Medical (Military Pension), 2002,” and the “Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982.”.The Court relied on the Supreme Court verdict in Dharamvir Singh Vs Union of India and held that a soldier is presumed to be in sound health at the time of enrollment unless otherwise noted. Any subsequent deterioration in health must be attributed to service unless expressly rebutted by cogent evidence, the Court underscored.Further, it ruled that even if the condition/ disability arose during service in a peace-area posting, the said disability can be said to have arisen or aggravated while in service unless there is an express exclusion in the regulations..Accordingly, the Court quashed the AFT’s order and directed the respondents to process the petitioner’s disability pension within three months. The Court also ordered the inclusion of rounding-off benefits as prescribed in Union of India v. Ram Avtar..Advocates Navdeep Singh, Roopan Atwal and Srishti Sharma appeared for petitioner.Panel Counsel Narender Kumar Vashist appeared for the respondent..[Read Order]