Disability Developed After 14 Years of Army Service Cannot Be Denied Attributability Without Adequate Reasoning: J&K and Ladakh High Court Upholds Disability Pension

Court: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh

Bench: Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem

Case Title: Union of India & Others v. Ex Naik Roshan Lal
Case No.: WP(C) No. 1885/2023 (before the J&K and Ladakh High Court challenging the AFT order)
Neutral Citation: 2026:JKLHC-JMU:1651
Decided on: 29 May 2026

Background

The present case arose from a challenge by the Union of India to an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) granting disability pension to Ex Naik Roshan Lal, a former Army personnel who had developed a disability during the course of his military service.

Roshan Lal had served in the Indian Army for approximately fourteen years before being invalided out of service on account of a medical condition. Upon his discharge, the competent authorities denied disability pension on the ground that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.

Aggrieved by the denial, the respondent approached the Armed Forces Tribunal, which held that the disability pension claim had been wrongly rejected and directed the authorities to grant disability benefits. The Union of India challenged the Tribunal's order before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh.

Issues Before the Court

The High Court was called upon to determine:

1. Whether the disability suffered by the respondent could be denied attribution to military service despite having manifested after fourteen years of active service.
2. Whether the Release Medical Board had provided sufficient reasons to conclude that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.
3. Whether the Armed Forces Tribunal was justified in directing the grant of disability pension to the respondent.
4. Whether the rejection of disability pension complied with the principles governing entitlement under military pension regulations and judicial precedents.

Key Observations of the Court

The Court emphasized that when a disability develops after a long period of military service, the authorities cannot mechanically deny attributability without furnishing cogent and convincing reasons.

The Bench noted that the respondent had rendered approximately fourteen years of service before the onset of the medical condition. The record did not disclose any adequate reasoning demonstrating why the disability was completely unrelated to military service.

The Court reiterated the settled principle that members of the Armed Forces are presumed to be in sound physical and mental condition at the time of their enrolment unless a contrary medical condition is recorded. Therefore, where a disability manifests during service, the burden lies on the authorities to establish, through clear medical evidence and reasoning, that the condition was neither attributable to nor aggravated by service.

The High Court found that the Medical Board's conclusions were unsupported by sufficient analysis and failed to explain how the disability was entirely disconnected from the respondent's prolonged military service.

The Bench observed that a mere assertion that a disease is not attributable to service cannot substitute a reasoned determination, particularly when such a finding deprives a serviceman of valuable pensionary benefits.

Directions Issued by the Court

The High Court upheld the order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the Union of India was dismissed. The Court affirmed the respondent's entitlement to disability pension and declined to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. As a consequence, the directions issued by the Armed Forces Tribunal for grant of disability benefits remained operative.

Significance of the Judgment

This judgment carries considerable significance for disability rights within the armed forces and for the jurisprudence governing disability pensions.

• First, it reinforces the principle that military personnel who develop disabilities during service cannot be deprived of pensionary benefits through unreasoned or mechanical findings of Medical Boards.
• Second, the judgment strengthens the presumption in favour of servicemen whose disabilities arise after years of active duty. It recognizes the unique physical and psychological demands of military service and places an obligation upon authorities to justify any denial of attributability with substantial evidence.
• Third, the decision underscores the importance of reasoned administrative decision-making. Medical Boards and pension authorities must provide clear and rational explanations rather than relying upon conclusory observations.
• Finally, the ruling aligns with the broader constitutional values of fairness, dignity, and social security for individuals who have served the nation in uniform.

Commentary

The judgment is a welcome reaffirmation of the protective framework developed by constitutional courts and the Armed Forces Tribunal in matters concerning disability pensions.

Over the years, courts have consistently recognized that disability pension is not merely a financial benefit but a measure of social justice for personnel who suffer health impairments during military service. The denial of such benefits often has severe consequences for veterans and their families.

The High Court's insistence on reasoned medical findings serves as an important safeguard against arbitrary administrative action. The ruling sends a clear message that disability pension claims cannot be rejected on the basis of vague or unsupported conclusions, particularly where the disability emerges after prolonged service.

The decision also reflects a humane and purposive interpretation of pension regulations. Rather than adopting a narrow technical approach, the Court focused on the realities of military service and the obligation of the State to protect the welfare of former servicemen.

From a disability rights perspective, the judgment advances the principle that individuals who acquire disabilities during service must receive fair treatment and meaningful access to statutory benefits. It contributes to a growing body of jurisprudence emphasizing accountability, transparency, and reasoned decision-making in disability-related adjudication.

Read the Judgement

Schizophrenia Presumed Attributable to Military Service Unless Proven Otherwise: Kerala High Court Upholds Disability Pension for Army Veteran

Court: High Court of Kerala
Bench: Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John
Case Title: Union of India v. Valsala S.
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 48547 of 2025
Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:36398
Decided on: 26 May 2026

Background

In an important judgment reaffirming the rights of armed forces personnel suffering from mental illness, the Kerala High Court has held that disability pension cannot be denied merely because the Release Medical Board labels schizophrenia as "constitutional in origin" without furnishing any reasons. The Court dismissed the Union of India's challenge to an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal granting disability pension to an Army personnel who had been invalided out of service on account of schizophrenia.

The case was pursued by Valsala S., widow of late Sepoy Sreekandan Nair, who was recruited into the Indian Army on 7 August 1973. He was invalided out of service on 15 July 1979 after being diagnosed with Schizophrenia, with the Release Medical Board assessing his disability at 60% for two years. His claim for disability pension was rejected on the ground that the disease was "constitutional in origin" and neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. His statutory appeal also failed, and he passed away in 1994.

Years later, his widow approached the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi. The Tribunal found that the Medical Board had offered no reasons whatsoever for concluding that the disease was constitutional in origin and consequently granted disability pension. Challenging that decision, the Union of India approached the Kerala High Court.

Issues Before the Court

The High Court considered the following questions:

• Whether disability pension can be denied solely on the basis of an unreasoned opinion of the Release Medical Board.
• Whether statutory presumptions under the Entitlement Rules and Armed Forces Medical Regulations operate in favour of personnel invalided out with schizophrenia.
• Whether courts can interfere where the Medical Board's opinion lacks reasons.
• Whether delay in approaching the Tribunal should defeat the claim of a person suffering from schizophrenia.

Key Findings

1. Presumption Favours the Soldier

The Court reiterated that under the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 and Regulation 423(c) of the Regulations for Medical Services for Armed Forces, 1983, where no note regarding any disease is recorded at the time of enrolment, a disease leading to invalidment is ordinarily presumed to have arisen during military service.

The burden, therefore, lies squarely upon the authorities to rebut that presumption with cogent medical evidence.

2. A Mere Medical Opinion Without Reasons Cannot Defeat Pension Rights

The central reason for dismissing the writ petition was that the Release Medical Board merely recorded that schizophrenia was "constitutional in origin" without explaining how it reached that conclusion.

The High Court held that an unreasoned medical opinion cannot form the basis for denying a valuable statutory benefit such as disability pension.

Relying upon the Supreme Court's recent decision in Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India, the Court observed that where the Medical Board's opinion is devoid of reasons, the consequential administrative decision denying disability pension becomes legally unsustainable.

3. Schizophrenia Requires a Sensitive Judicial Approach

The Court extensively referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Veer Pal Singh v. Secretary, Ministry of Defence, which recognises schizophrenia as a chronic, severe and disabling mental illness affecting cognition, behaviour, perception and the ability to function independently.

The judgment also relied upon the Supreme Court's observations in Rajumon T.M., noting that courts must remain conscious of the debilitating effects of schizophrenia, which often impair an individual's ability to pursue legal remedies or effectively represent his own case. Consequently, delay in approaching judicial forums cannot be viewed in the same manner as ordinary civil litigation.

4. Disability Pension Is Beneficial Legislation

The Bench reaffirmed that provisions relating to disability pension constitute beneficial social welfare legislation and therefore deserve liberal interpretation.

Where two interpretations are possible, courts must adopt the one that advances the object of protecting disabled servicemen rather than defeating their claims on technical grounds.

5. High Courts Can Correct Jurisdictional Errors

Rejecting the Union's contention that the High Court should not interfere with findings of the Armed Forces Tribunal, the Court relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Parashotam Dass to reiterate that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 remains available where there is a jurisdictional error, denial of fundamental rights or an error apparent on the face of the record.

Decision

The Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Union of India and upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal's order granting disability pension.

The Court found no error in the Tribunal's conclusion that the Medical Board's unexplained opinion could not displace the statutory presumption that the disease arose during military service.

Why This Judgment Matters

(a) Reinforces the Presumption in Favour of Disabled Servicemen

The decision strengthens the long-established principle that where no disability is recorded at the time of recruitment, diseases leading to invalidment are presumed to have arisen during service unless the Government proves otherwise through reasoned medical evidence.

(b) Advances Mental Health Jurisprudence

The judgment is significant because it recognises the unique nature of schizophrenia and acknowledges that persons suffering from severe mental illness may face substantial barriers in pursuing legal remedies. This represents a welcome move towards a disability-sensitive approach in pension adjudication.

(c) Insists on Reasoned Medical Decision-Making

The ruling makes it clear that Medical Boards cannot deny statutory benefits through conclusory observations. A mere statement that a disease is "constitutional in origin" is insufficient unless supported by scientific reasoning and evidence.

(d) Strengthens Social Security Rights

Disability pension is not an act of governmental generosity but a statutory entitlement forming part of the social security framework available to armed forces personnel invalided out of service.

DRI Commentary

This judgment is another important step in the Supreme Court-led evolution of disability pension jurisprudence relating to mental illness. The Kerala High Court has correctly recognised that statutory presumptions cannot be displaced by unexplained medical conclusions.

Equally significant is the Court's appreciation of schizophrenia as a serious psychosocial disability. Persons living with schizophrenia frequently experience cognitive impairment, difficulty in decision-making, diminished insight and prolonged dependence on caregivers. These realities make it inappropriate to judge delays in asserting legal rights through the conventional lens of limitation.

The judgment also reinforces an essential administrative law principle: reasons are the heartbeat of every decision affecting rights. Where the State seeks to deny disability pension, particularly to personnel invalided out on account of mental illness, it must provide clear, evidence-based reasons. A bare assertion that a disease is constitutional in origin cannot satisfy the standards of fairness required under law.

For disability rights advocates, the decision is significant beyond military pension law. It affirms that mental disabilities deserve the same evidentiary fairness, statutory protection and rights-based interpretation as physical disabilities. It also reiterates that beneficial legislation intended to secure social protection must be interpreted liberally in favour of persons with disabilities rather than narrowly to defeat legitimate claims.

The ruling is likely to strengthen future challenges where disability pension has been denied solely on the basis of unreasoned opinions of Medical Boards, particularly in cases involving mental illnesses such as schizophrenia.

Read the Judgement 

Supreme Court Restores Full Pension Benefits to Army Veteran: Refusal to Undergo High-Risk Surgery Cannot Curtail Disability Pension

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar
Case Title: Ex L/Nk Rajput Ajit Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 420 of 2020
Decided on: 12 September 2023

Background

In an important judgment strengthening disability pension jurisprudence for armed forces personnel, the Supreme Court held that a soldier cannot be denied or deprived of disability pension merely because he declined to undergo a life-threatening surgical procedure.

The appellant, an Ex-Lance Naik of the Indian Army, rendered 15 years of exemplary service before being discharged in 1987 after developing a serious cardiac condition diagnosed as Complete Heart Block (4–6). The Medical Board assessed his disability at 100% and placed him in a permanent low medical category. Subsequently, a pacemaker was implanted, and he sought reassessment of his disability pension. While the Armed Forces Tribunal held that he was entitled to disability pension, it restricted the benefit to one year. Aggrieved by this limitation, he approached the Supreme Court.

Issues Before the Court

The Supreme Court considered:

• Whether disability pension could be restricted to one year despite the Medical Board recording a permanent disability.
• Whether refusal to undergo a risky surgical procedure could justify limiting disability pension.
• Whether the Armed Forces Tribunal had correctly applied Rule 185 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961.

Key Findings

1) Refusal of Surgery Is Not Misconduct

The Court noted that the Medical Board itself had recorded that the appellant's disability was not attributable to any misconduct or negligence on his part and that his military record was exemplary.

The only circumstance that appeared to have weighed against him was his unwillingness to undergo surgery, which, at the relevant time, carried life-threatening risks. The Supreme Court found no justification for treating this refusal as a ground to curtail his pensionary entitlement.

2) Permanent Disability Cannot Attract Temporary Pension Without Reasons

The Bench observed that the appellant had been discharged because of permanent disablement. In such circumstances, the Armed Forces Tribunal's decision to confine disability pension to one year was found to be illogical and unsupported by reasons.

3) Rule 185 Must Be Followed

The Court relied on Rule 185 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, which provides that where a disability is certified as incapable of improvement, disability pension should ordinarily be sanctioned for ten years in the first instance, followed by reassessment. Only in specified permanent conditions is life-long disability pension granted immediately.

The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal had either overlooked or failed to apply this statutory scheme while limiting the benefit to one year.

Directions

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court:

• set aside the Armed Forces Tribunal's direction restricting disability pension to one year;
• directed that disability pension be granted in accordance with Rule 185 for ten years, subject to reassessment thereafter;
• directed payment of arrears restricted to three years prior to the filing of proceedings before the Tribunal, together with future disability pension in accordance with the Rules.

Why This Judgment Matters

a) Protects Bodily Autonomy

The decision reinforces the principle that a service member cannot be compelled—directly or indirectly—to undergo hazardous medical treatment in order to preserve pensionary rights. A refusal to undertake risky surgery cannot by itself become a basis for reducing disability benefits.

b) Ensures Faithful Application of Pension Regulations

The judgment reiterates that adjudicating authorities must apply the Pension Regulations as they stand. Departure from the statutory scheme requires cogent reasons, particularly where the disability has been assessed as permanent.

c) Strengthens Disability Pension Jurisprudence

The ruling adds to the growing body of Supreme Court decisions adopting a liberal and rights-based interpretation of disability pension provisions for armed forces personnel.

DRI Commentary

Although brief, the judgment underscores two important principles in disability rights and military pension law.

First, medical autonomy is an integral component of dignity. An individual cannot be penalised for declining a surgical intervention, particularly where the procedure carries significant risks. Pension entitlements cannot be made contingent upon acceptance of invasive medical treatment.

Secondly, the judgment reinforces the rule of law in disability pension adjudication. Once the Medical Board records permanent disability and there is no finding of misconduct or negligence, adjudicatory bodies cannot arbitrarily restrict pensionary benefits contrary to the governing Pension Regulations.

While the Supreme Court did not direct life-long disability pension, it ensured that the appellant received the benefit contemplated under Rule 185 and prevented an unjustified curtailment of his statutory entitlement.

The decision serves as another reminder that disability pension is a legal right flowing from service and sacrifice—not a discretionary concession dependent upon medical choices made by the disabled veteran.

Read the Judgement

Defence Personnel get a raw deal, disabled are worst hit

Please refer to my earlier post dated 11 Feb 2014 titled: Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare working against the interest of Disabled Soldiers. 

Defence Personnel  or Ex-Servicemen are at a great disadvantage in respect of pay, pension and medical benefits compared with civilian government employees. It is none other than their own department called Department of Ex-servicemen Welfare who is working against their interest and resorting to appeals against all orders of Armed Forces Tribunal that went in favour of the soldiers. 

FRONTLINE Article

Over the past five years, ex-servicemen have been agitating against the injustice meted out to them by the Central government. They have lost faith in the Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare (DESW), created specifically to take care of their welfare. Ex-servicemen have won 90 per cent of the cases filed in the Armed Forces Tribunals and the Supreme Court against the government, but the government has appealed in all the cases through the DESW.

The veterans have approached the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister to seek redress in numerous cases where they felt injustice had been done to them but to no avail. The Supreme Court’s judgments in their favour have either not been implemented or not been implemented in letter and spirit in cases pertaining to disability pensions, payment of arrears with retrospective effect from January 1, 2006, rank pay, and hospital charges on authorised Ex-servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS) rates for medical treatment abroad.

The government files en masse appeals against retired defence personnel whenever any case relating to pension benefits is decided in their favour by any court of law or the Armed Forces Tribunal. Facing the brunt of the government’s apathy is the category of disabled and war-disabled soldiers. Most of the special leave petitions and appeals filed by the Ministry of Defence in the Supreme Court are against the grant of disability or war injury benefits to disabled and war-disabled soldiers. As a result, the veterans are forced into expensive litigation.

Over 3,000 cases decided in favour of defence personnel by the Armed Forces Tribunal have not been implemented; the Defence Ministry has contested all these judgments in the Supreme Court. Imagine the plight of a widow of a sepoy living in a far-flung rural area. How is she going to find the resources to fight her case in the Supreme Court? The tribunals were created for delivering speedy justice to defence personnel at minimum cost. But the Ministry’s decision to appeal against the tribunal’s judgments has not only delayed justice but also made it near impossible for the defence personnel to fight their cases. The Armed Forces Tribunals do not have contempt powers to get their judgments implemented whereas Central Administrative Tribunals (CATs) are vested with such powers.

This is the biggest cause of heart burning in the military community today. Military personnel with non-service-related disabilities discharged with less than 10 years of service remaining are not entitled to any form of pension, whereas the employment of civilian employees who “acquires a disability during his service” is protected under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.

As per the Sixth Central Pay Commission recommendations, all government servants are allowed three assured career progressions. Civilians who retire at the age of 60 are allowed promotions at 10, 20 and 30 years of service, and soldiers at eight, 16 and 24 years. However, since jawans are forced to retire early, largely between 15 and 19 years of service, to keep up the young profile of the forces, they miss out on at least one assured career progression, unlike their civil counterparts, who serve their full term until superannuation. It has been proposed to the government that the third career progression should be given to jawans automatically; they should be promoted to the rank of naib subedar at the time of retirement. Surprisingly, this demand has not been accepted.

Widow’s pension

Widow’s pension is one area of concern to the defence community that has received little attention from the government. A sepoy’s widow pension has remained a meagre Rs.3,500 a month while other sections of government employees have received periodic increases in such pension. The minimum family pension in respect of defence widows must be enhanced from Rs.3,500 to Rs.10,000 a month.

It is common knowledge that soldiers retire ahead of their time. What is not known, however, is that their life expectancy is shorter than that of civilians. The Institute of Applied Research in Manpower Analysis (IARM), which studied the lifespan of civilian employees at the behest of the Fifth Pay Commission, arrived at 77 years as the average life expectancy of a civilian government servant. The Railways conducted a similar exercise for their personnel and assessed that they achieved an average lifespan of 78 years. No such study was conducted for defence personnel since it was generally believed that soldiers lived longer than civilians. However, Major General (retired) Surjit Singh, AVSM (Athi Vishisht Seva Medal), VSM (Vishisht Seva Medal), who headed the Army Cell of the Fifth Pay Commission, carried out a detailed study in 2005 along with other experts. The study revealed that the average lifespan of defence officers was 72.5 years; that of junior commissioned officers (JCOs) 67 years; and that of other ranks was between 59.6 and 64 years.

These findings were forwarded to the Chief of the Army Staff General J.J. Singh on July 7, 2005, by Lieutenant General (retd) M.M. Lakhera, PVSM (Param Vishisht Seva Medal), AVSM, VSM, who was Lieutenant Governor of Puducherry. The findings were reported by all national newspapers and a question was asked in Parliament on the subject. Pranab Mukherjee, who was the Defence Minister then, maintained that the issue would be examined in detail. Nothing was heard about it after that.

Stress and strain of early retirement is one of the major reasons for the lower life expectancy among the defence personnel. Their legitimate demand for an assured second career until the age of 60 through an Act of Parliament has not yet been accepted.

While the pensions of all ranks were enhanced with effect from September 24, 2012, to redress the anomaly of the Sixth Pay Commission, the request to enhance the pension of JCOs proportionately was not granted. Majors with 13 years and more of service who retired before 2004 have been denied the benefit of the rank of lieutenant colonel (that is, the benefit of pay band-4 in the revised scale of the Sixth Pay Commission).

The government’s policy to grant lieutenant colonel rank on completion of 13 years of service was made applicable with effect from 2004. It would have been only just to grant all those who retired before 2004 in the rank of major with 13 years of commissioned service (this number being finite) the benefit of pension on the scale of lieutenant colonel. The strong plea in this regard has not been accepted.

Also, the non-functional upgrade (NFU) granted to civilian employees has been denied to defence personnel, thereby putting them at a disadvantage.

One Rank One Pension

One of the major demands of veterans is same pension for same rank and same length of service, that is, same rank + same length of service = same pension, irrespective of the date of retirement. They want a legislative guarantee to this. Although all major political parties have agreed to this in principle and frequently incorporate it in their election manifestos, this 40-year-old demand has not been implemented. The bureaucratic excuses in the form of administrative, legal and financial hurdles in implementing the demand were heard in detail in 2011 by the Rajya Sabha Petition Committee set up to look into all aspects of the demand and rejected them in the strongest terms. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had agreed to this provision in principle, but her untimely death scuttled the proposal. Successive Standing Committees on Defence and the Rajya Sabha Petition Committee have recommended this but to no avail.

Before 2006, the difference in the pensions of Major General and Lieutenant General was only Rs.1,400. Subsequently, it became Rs.700. With the extension of higher administrative grade (HAG) and HAG+ to the rank of Lieutenant General and above, the difference in pension is more than Rs.8,000 even after the increase with effect from September 24, 2012. The government has overlooked the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations, which suggested that all government employees with a basic pay of Rs. 20,000 and above be clubbed under the same pay band. Major Generals retire with a basic pay of Rs.22,400 and above while Lieutenant Generals retire with a basic pay of Rs.23,500 and above. Non-inclusion of major generals in HAG has caused an anomaly.

On losing the case, the Defence Ministry filed a review petition in the Supreme Court, denying enhanced arrears to army pensioners as ordered by the Delhi High Court with retrospective effect from January 1, 2006, instead of September 24, 2012.

Civilian employees are provided health care under the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) while ex-servicemen are covered under the ECHS. The provision of budget for the CGHS is calculated (for 2013-14) at the rate Rs.10,700 for every beneficiary while for the ECHS, it has been budgeted at Rs.3,150 a beneficiary. As a result, super-speciality hospitals do not offer themselves for ECHS empanelment. Over 80 per cent of the health care units have withdrawn from empanelment in view of delayed payment of bills and inadequate rates for various medical procedures. This has resulted in unsatisfactory or poor medical care for ex-servicemen. Sophisticated procedures have not been included in the ECHS. The veterans’ request for inclusion of the latest medical procedures on the ECHS benefits list has not been accepted yet. Ex-servicemen had requested that the budget be enhanced and not be less than the CGHS rates.

Here is an example to illustrate the poor nature of health care benefits provided by the government to ex-servicemen. Non-availability of funds with the ECHS and, as a consequence, non-payment of hospital dues made an empanelled hospital in Gurgaon in the National Capital Region to stop accepting patients for cashless medical treatment. Ex-Subedar Prakash Chandra Tomar from Meerut was brought to the hospital in a serious condition on December 8, 2013, which as per the ECHS scheme is permitted. The family was asked by the hospital authorities to deposit the money for the treatment or transfer the patient to some other hospital. Since the condition of the patient was serious, the family raised a loan and deposited Rs.11 lakh for 20 days of hospitalisation and treatment.

When the family was in no position to arrange further funds, Tomar’s son, Raj Kumar Tomar, approached the Indian Ex-Servicemen’s Movement (IESM) and the case was taken up with the Managing Director of the ECHS, who promised to get cashless treatment. But he did not succeed. The family deposited another Rs.2 lakh in the hospital. On January 1, Subedar Prakash died. The hospital did not accede to the request of the ECHS to release the body and insisted that the family clear the hospital bills.

In November 2008, the government had announced that in future there would be a separate pay commission for the defence forces. The defence fraternity feels betrayed as the government has not constituted a separate pay commission, and, as in the case of the previous commissions, there is no representation for defence forces in the newly constituted Seventh Pay Commission. Some 39 anomalies in defence pensions are yet to be resolved and with no defence representation in the new pay commission, more anomalies are likely to appear thereby increasing the magnitude of injustice already done to defence pensioners.

Denial of voting rights

It is surprising that serving defence personnel are denied the right to get themselves registered as voters at the place of posting. In spite of a clear judgment by the Supreme Court in 1971, this basic right has not been extended to soldiers. The option of postal ballot and proxy voting available to serving soldiers has not proved effective. There is no restriction imposed in the Representation of the People Act, 1950, to deny this right to defence personnel. There is an urgent need to restore this right immediately to allow serving soldiers to vote at their place of posting in the coming Lok Sabha elections.

The prevailing security environment calls for strong measures to upgrade the country’s defence preparedness in terms of manpower, equipment and weapon systems. Equally important are measures to keep the soldier’s morale high.

Source: Frontline

Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare working against interests of Disabled Soldiers

This is how our bureaucracy treats the disabled! If any ex-serviceman and disabled soldier moves a case for disability  pension benefits against Ministry of Defence, he will be challenged all the way up to Supreme Court, ruled the Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare (DESW) - a wing of Min. of Defence on 02 Jan 14.

In other words, a disabled soldier or war veteran either accepts what is doled out as charity or be ready to fight a losing battle even after winning the case in Armed Forces Tribunal in next two superior courts. Reason- Babus feel that reference to legal opinion is time consuming and involves lot of paper work hence the department will appeal automatically against each case won by the soldiers- first in High Court and then in SC. That means babus will pay hefty fee (from tax payers' money) to the standing counsels but not release legal dues ordered by its own Tribunal to the deserving soldiers...!  It is not a challenging guess as to how many disabled soldiers or veterans can afford to keep fighting from the Armed Forces Tribunal to the High Court to the Supreme Court!

An elected representative in parliament went on to write that the impugned order smacked of callousness and high handedness on the part of the Government and that the order would aggravate the misery of those who have lost their limbs or eyesight or sustained any other grievous harm in the service of the nation.

Its only after the hue and cry for over a month against MoD's heartless and desperate effort to "tire the disabled out" in the autumn of their lives, the defence minister has personally intervened.

Thank you Mr. Antony for intervening and withdrawing this most unreasonable rule thrown at the face of those who gave the nation their prime time of life, though after more than a month!

See Related Links:

Disabled Ex-servicemen get breather from Antony
http://epaper.mailtoday.in/showtext.aspx?boxid=34956953&parentid=90673&issuedate=1122014

Army Chief to Protest Defence Ministry treatment of Ex-servicemen
http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/army-chief-to-protest-defence-ministry-treatment-of-ex-servicemen-114011500026_1.html  

Resolve issue of pension of disabled soldiers: Smriti to govt.
http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/resolve-issue-of-pension-of-disabled-soldiers-smriti-to-govt/1156349/0

Voluntarily retired soldiers entitled to disability pension

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/voluntarily-retired-soldier-entitled-to-disability-pension/article3976340.ece  

Now, all disabled soldiers to get disability pension
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-08-04/india/33034927_1_disabled-soldiers-disability-pension-lt-gen-ns-brar

Law on disabilities in service- Supreme Court holds the hand of the disabled soldier yet again in a landmark judgement

Non discrimination, UN CRPD and Disabled Soldiers in India

Dear Friends,

The two most enabling sections of the The Persons with Disabilities Act 1995 i.e. section 33 (Employment Chapter) and section 47 (Non Discrimination Chapter) have been made redundant by their disabling proviso which I call as Black proviso i.e.  "Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any department or establishment, by notification subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section."

This black provisio continues in the new draft Right of Persons with Disabilities Bill 2012  ready to be tabled in the parliament in different sections. The biggest victim of this proviso under Section 47,  have been those brave citizen of this vast nation who risked their lives to preserve the integrity of their motherland while being in defense forces, para-military forces & police departments and acquired disabilities - both minor or severe. The effect of this black proviso has been catastrophic on the morale of those who are out there on the borders to defend the nation or stationed in troubled areas to control the  law and order and save the democracies.

What will happen to me and my family if I become disabled during the course of duty or during my job? Am I being treated like my civilian counter parts when it comes to the social protection or non-discrimination? .... such questions plague the psyche of the ordinary officers of our forces - thanks to the black proviso and the subsequent notification by the Govt. of India under the said proviso declaring the defense forces to be kept out of the ambit of the protections available under this section.

Civilian Employees Versus Combatant Employees

Lets understand how the two employees - one civilian and one from the forces is treated under section 47 of the disabilities Act:

The section mandates as below:

"47. Non-discrimination in Government Employment - (1) No establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service:

Provided that, if an employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits:

Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier.

(2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability:

Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.  (most misused proviso)

Now if it was a civilian employee under the government, on acquiring a disability due to any reason, his pay scale and service benefits remain protected even if the disability sustained limits the functional capacities of the person to an extent that he/she can not be adjusted against any existing post. Such a person remains on a supernumerary post until a post is found out or till he attains age of superannuation.

On the contrary, an employee from the forces, on acquiring a disability - whether during the course of duty or during any mishap when not on duty is invariably  medically  boarded out with a paltry disability pension and left to fend for himself in the grim employment scenario. The family members and dependents suffer due to sudden calamity and the person becomes a liability for the family in absence of strong social security provisions. 

Why the talented youth is not attracted to Forces any more

Given an option, any talented young person would prefer a civil employment to an employment in the forces since the forces have not thought to respect for the sacrifices or say the human rights, social security and non-discrimination clauses of the central laws and international human right conventions. The youth of today knows there is no future in the forces. Worst - in case of a mishap - death or disability is inevitable. And both  will take away the bread winner of the family with no social protections.

Need to think out of box in light of UN CRPD

We as a nation has to think what we offer to our sons and daughters  who risk their lives for the country in comparison to a civilian on duty. Also we have to walk the talk since India is among first few handful countries  who signed the UN Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities on the very first day of its opening for signature and subsequently ratified the same. However, we continue to discriminate on the basis of disability when it comes to government employment in forces.

The UN Convention defines "Discrimination on the basis of disability" means any distinction, exclusion or restriction on the basis of disability which has the purpose or effect of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal basis with others, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field. It includes all forms of discrimination, including denial of reasonable accommodation;

Some possibilities worth considering

Not all jobs in the forces are of combatant nature and many involve desk jobs such administration, logistics, equipment, stores, purchase and several others. This means that the exemption given under the garb of black proviso, can be easily withdrawn and combatants acquiring disabilities can be adjusted in non-combatant jobs/branches. 

If the Government feels that it may compromise with the war preparedness of the forces, it may also consider keeping all such severely disabled combatant employees on supernumerary posts with full pay scale and other benefits. While those who are with disabilities that allow sufficient functional abilities to be gainfully occupied in the desk operations, should be accommodated in the base units/formations.

This can help fill up the huge shortfall in the forces by motivating the youth and assuring them that they would not be discriminated if they become disabled while in service- whether the injury was or not attributable to service.

This would ensure that our forces do not discriminate on the basis of disability and are in conformity with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. There have been several examples in the defence forces where combatants who acquired disability during action were retained and such a trend is very good, however, one should not be forced to go to Armed Forces Tribunal each time to obtain right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law (Art 14 of the Constitution) and Article 5 (equality and non-discrimination) of the UNCRPD.

We don't need to wait for the new draft law to come in to being to enforce this and it can be simply done by withdrawing the "Black Proviso" and the Notification of Exemption accordingly encapsulating the above.

Discharged on request with undertaking- will not seek pension- illegal, arbitrary & bad in law

 Dear friends,

Here is a fit case that has come to light which reinforces that the principals of natural justice can't be overruled with illegal undertakings got signed from the outgoing employees. Disregarding the earlier rejection of the petition by lower court and also refusal from Punjab and Haryana High court, the Chandigarh bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) decided the disability pension case in favour of the retired subedar, a day before i.e. on 09th March 2010.

The Subedar was discharged on his own request and the employer got an undertaking signed from him that he would not claim any pension. The court held it absoutely illegal, arbitrary and bad in law. Though the matter took a long time but finally some justice seems to be coming through.

This matter also indicates that specific courts can do much better job in rendering justice than a regular or general court. The same holds true for matters relating to disability- where our experience confirms that the Court of Chief Commissioner-Disabilities constituted under the Persons with Disabilities Act 1995 has done far better job while CAT and High Court went on against the petitioners in similar matters.

regards

SC Vashishth, Advocate-Disability Rights

To read from source click here:  VRS no ground for rejecting pension, says defence tribunal

The Chandigarh bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) decided a disability pension case in favour of a retired subedar on Tuesday. The case had earlier been rejected by a lower court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court on the grounds that the army personnel had given an undertaking at the time of voluntary retirement stating he would not claim disability pension.

Citing the decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Mahavir Singh Narwal versus Union of India of 2005 in support of this case, the Chandigarh bench of AFT, comprising Justice Ghanshyam Prasad and Lieutenant General (retired) Justice N S Brar, decided that the lower court was neither legal nor justified and had wrongly rejected the suit of the petitioner.

The bench decided that the petitioner, former subedar Rohtash Singh, resident of Umrawal village, district Bhiwani, was entitled to get disability pension from the date of his discharge plus the arrears of three years prior to filing of the suit with eight per cent annual interest. It was stated that the rejection of Singh’s claim for grant of disability pension on the grounds that he was discharged from service at his own request and gave an undertaking that he would not claim any pension was absolutely illegal, arbitrary and bad in law.

Rohtash Singh joined the Regiment of Artillery on May 25, 1967. He had a head injury after he met with a serious accident on September 26, 1989.

The medical board proceedings conducted by the Military Hospital in Ambala Cantonment awarded him 30 per cent disability and he was discharged on September 1, 1992.

He approached the appropriate authority for the grant of disability pension, which was rejected by the Artillery Record, Nasik, on January 12, 1994, on the plea that he was discharged at his own request and hence not entitled for disability pension. He also filed an appeal against the rejection of his appeal which was also rejected by the competent authority on July 22, 1994.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court relegated the matter to the civil court on August 12, 2005. The civil court also rejected Singh’s appeal on the grounds that he was discharged from service at his own request on extreme compassionate grounds as per the Army Headquarters and he has approached the court after the lapse of nine years of rejection of his appeal.