Union Of India vs Ex Havildar V Unnikrishnan Nair on 5 August, 2025

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Union Of India vs Ex Havildar V Unnikrishnan Nair on 5 August, 2025

This writ petition is filed by the respondents in O.A No.85 of 2024 on the files of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench Kochi (hereinafter referred to as 'AFT' for short), challenging the order dated 29.07.2024, granting disability pension to the applicant.

2. The applicant, was recruited in the Indian Air Force on 30.05.1983 in a physically and mentally fit condition and was posted in various places, including adverse climatic conditions, high terrains and hostile situations. During 2005, the applicant developed Lumbar Spondylosis and in the year 2007, developed Primary Hypertension. The Release Medical Board assessed the disabilities, Primary Hypertension at 30% for life and Lumbar Spondylosis at 20% for life, with composite disability at 50%. But the Release Medical Board opined that the disabilities are neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Consequently, the claim of the applicant for disability pension was rejected and W.P.(C)No.27778 of 2025 3 2025:KER:58577 the appeals preferred also ended in dismissal. It is aggrieved by the denial of disability pension, the applicant preferred O.A.No.85 of 2024 before the AFT.

3. The tribunal, after considering the materials on record and hearing both sides, allowed the O.A., and directed the 3 rd and 4th respondents to grant disability element of pension to the applicant at a composite rate of 50%, with the benefit of rounding off to 75%, from the applicant's date of discharge. However, considering the delay in approaching the tribunal, the arrears was limited to a period of three years before the date of filing of the OA.

4. Heard Smt. M. Shajna, the learned Central Government Counsel for the petitioners.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the disabilities of the applicant has nothing to do with the service conditions and the Medical Board had duly examined the applicant and has opined that the disabilities are neither attributable to nor aggravated by Military Service. She submitted that due weightage must be given to the Medical Board and there are no reasons to deviate from the conclusion of the Medical Board. She argued that in the case of the applicant, there is no casual connection of the disabilities with military service and the applicant has not been W.P.(C)No.27778 of 2025 4 2025:KER:58577 exposed to any stress or strain in service.

6. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the applicant was recruited in the Indian Army on 30.05.1983 and was discharged on 30.04.2008. It is also not in dispute that the Medical Board has assessed the disabilities, Primary Hypertension at 30% for life and Lumbar Spondylosis at 20% for life, with a composite disability at 50% for life, but has considered all of them as not attributable to or aggravated by service. The learned tribunal, on an appraisal of the materials on record has disapproved the finding that the invalidating diseases were neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service and has held that the applicant is entitled to get disability element of pension also.

7. The only question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the said finding requires any interference? It is to be seen that the Medical Board after examining the applicant has given the following reasons while rendering its opinion.

''1. Primary Hypertension- Constitutional disease, onset on 16 February 2007 at Bangalore (Karnataka).

2. Lumbar Spondylosis - Constitutional disease, onset on October 2005 at Bangalore (Karnataka)''

8. It is relevant to note that as per Rule 7 of the W.P.(C)No.27778 of 2025 5 2025:KER:58577 Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 2008, the onus of proof is on the petitioners to show that the disability suffered by the applicant is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. In order to discharge the said onus, the Release Medical Board must substantiate, through cogent reasoning in its report that although the disease was not present at the time of induction, it is still not attributable to military service. The Release Medical Board must identify some other factor, apart from military service, as the cause of the disease, and it cannot merely assert without adequate reasons that the disease, though contracted during military service, is not attributable to such service. The Release Medical Board must provide specific reasons for not considering the disability/disease suffered by the applicant as attributable to or aggravated by service. It must not resort to a vague and stereotyped approach; but must engage in a comprehensive, logical, and rational analysis of the service and medical records of the person and must record well reasoned findings while discharging the onus placed upon it. While performing such an exercise, the Medical Board must duly examine the particulars relevant to the individual concerned, such as the nature of the job, working hours, dietary restrictions, places where W.P.(C)No.27778 of 2025 6 2025:KER:58577 he was deployed, stress and strain involved in the job--both mental and physical, etc. and thereafter, must assign cogent and sound justifications for its conclusions. (See the decisions in Union of India & others v. Col. Balbir Singh (Retd) [2025:DHC:5082-DB] and Union of India v. Bhaskaran N [2024 KHC 7223]).

9. In the present case, the report of the Medical Board shows that none of the aforementioned factors and guidelines have been followed/considered by the Medical Board while giving its opinion as referred afore. On the other hand, the Medical Board has merely stated that the diseases suffered by the applicant are constitutional diseases. Therefore, considering the fact that there are no reasons provided to reinforce the opinion that the disabilities are not attributable to or aggravated by service, we are of the view that the denial of disability pension to the applicant is not only illegal, but also indefensible.

10. Be that at it may, paragraph 43 of the Guide to Medical Officers, 2008, relied on by the Board, itself would show that if the disease, hypertension appears to have arisen or become worse in service, the question of whether the service compulsions have caused aggravation must be considered by the Medical Board. It also states that Primary Hypertension would be considered W.P.(C)No.27778 of 2025 7 2025:KER:58577 aggravated if it occurs while serving in field areas, high altitude areas or prolonged afloat service. In the present case, admittedly, no such endeavor has been made by the Medical Board and the onset of the disease Primary Hypertension has taken place in 2007, while the applicant was in field station. As regards the disease Lumbar Spondylosis, the onset of the said disease was also in field area and if so, as rightly found by the tribunal, aggravation due to stress and strain of service is conceded as per paragraph 51 of the Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pensions), 2008.

11. In the light of the afore discussions, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the tribunal. Considering the long lapse of time after the retirement of the applicant in 2008, we are also of the view that no purpose would be served in getting a revaluation of the disability status of the applicant.

Ergo, we find no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE Sd/-

P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE Dxy W.P.(C)No.27778 of 2025 8 2025:KER:58577 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27778/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE O.A 85/2024 ALONG WITH ALL ANNEXURES, FILED BY THE RESPONDENT, BEFORE THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, KOCHI DATED 06-03-2024 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS ALONG WITH ANNEXURES DATED 10-07-2024 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.07.2024 IN OA NO. 85/2024 PASSED BY THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL , REGIONAL BENCH KOCHI

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court