Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed the Union of India’s petition challenging the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) order granting disability pension to a retired Air Force personnel diagnosed with Diabetes Mellitus Type-II (DM-II). The Court upheld the AFT’s reliance on Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and reinforced that the presumption of service-attribution applies unless convincingly rebutted by the employer. Citing UOI v. Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso and Bijender Singh v. UOI, the Court emphasised that a soldier need not prove that his ailment was contracted or aggravated due to military service.
Facts
The respondent served over 22 years in the Indian Air Force before being diagnosed with DM-II and released in a Low Medical Category. At the time of joining, he declared no prior illness, and the Release Medical Board (RMB) did not dispute this. The RMB categorised DM-II as a “constitutional disorder” and recorded no negligence or misconduct on the respondent’s part. He was assessed with a lifelong 20% disability. The AFT granted him disability pension, relying on settled principles that any illness arising during service, absent contrary evidence, is presumed service-related.
Issues
- Whether DM-II, diagnosed after over two decades of military service, was attributable to or aggravated by service.
- Whether the High Court could interfere with the AFT’s decision in certiorari jurisdiction.
- Whether the presumption under service law rules was rebutted by the employer.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The Union of India argued that the RMB categorised DM-II as a constitutional disorder unrelated to service conditions, making the grant of disability pension unsustainable. They submitted that the finding was based on medical expertise and should not be disturbed.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent contended that he was fit at entry, as confirmed by medical examination and undisputed declarations. The RMB failed to identify any cause unrelated to service, and the Commanding Officer’s certificate confirmed no negligence or misconduct. The presumption under service rules was unrebutted, and established precedents mandated a liberal interpretation in favour of granting disability benefits.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reiterated that under settled law, a soldier is presumed to be healthy upon entry unless noted otherwise. If discharged on medical grounds later, the illness is presumed attributable to service unless the employer proves otherwise with reasons. The Court relied on Gawas Anil Madso, which held that the RMB must positively identify non-service causes before denying pension.
In Bijender Singh, the Supreme Court clarified that:
- The burden is on the employer to rebut the presumption.
- The soldier need not prove the service connection.
- Any disability causing invalidation is deemed above 20% and qualifies for 50% pension.
Precedent Analysis
- Dharamvir Singh v. UOI (2013) 7 SCC 316 – Established presumption of service-attribution and liberal interpretation of disability pension rules.
- UOI v. Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso (2025 SCC OnLine Del 2018) – RMB must identify non-service causes; absence of pre-entry illness note strengthens presumption.
- UOI v. EX MWO HFO Bharat Tiwari (2025 SCC OnLine Del 2358) – Interpreted GMO 2008 on when DM-II is conceded aggravated.
- Bijender Singh v. UOI (2025 SCC OnLine SC 895) – Reaffirmed presumption in favour of the soldier and clarified minimum pension entitlement.
- Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan (AIR 1964 SC 477) – Limited certiorari jurisdiction to errors of law apparent on record.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found:
- The respondent had no pre-service DM-II, and this was undisputed.
- The RMB’s “constitutional disorder” label lacked reasoning to rebut service-attribution.
- The Commanding Officer’s certificate negated any fault of the respondent.
- Under GMO 2008, DM-II can be service-aggravated in certain conditions, and there was no contrary finding.
- Certiorari jurisdiction did not allow the Court to re-appreciate evidence; no legal error was shown in the AFT’s order.
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the AFT’s grant of disability pension. The authorities were directed to ensure compliance within four weeks if not already done.
Implications
This judgment strengthens disability pension claims for service members diagnosed with illnesses post-enlistment. It underscores that the onus is on the employer to disprove service connection and that service-attribution is presumed in absence of contrary proof. It also reinforces judicial restraint in certiorari review of specialised tribunal findings.
Cases Referred and Their Relevance
- Dharamvir Singh v. UOI: Liberal interpretation favouring service members.
- Gawas Anil Madso: RMB’s obligation to specify non-service causes.
- Bharat Tiwari: Guidelines for DM-II attribution under GMO 2008.
- Bijender Singh: Presumption of service-attribution; minimum pension entitlement.
- Syed Yakoob: Limits of certiorari review.
FAQs
Q1. What is the legal presumption regarding illnesses diagnosed during military service?
If a soldier is medically fit at entry, any illness leading to discharge is presumed attributable to service unless the employer rebuts it with reasons.
Q2. Can courts re-assess medical evidence in writ proceedings against AFT orders?
No, under certiorari jurisdiction, courts can only correct errors of law apparent on record, not re-evaluate factual findings unless they are unsupported by evidence.
Q3. What pension entitlement applies if disability is found service-related?
If disability is service-related and causes invalidation, it is deemed above 20% and entitles the soldier to 50% disability pension for life.
