Soldier Entitled To A Disability Pension If The Condition Is Due To Military Service: Supreme Court

The timing of when a disability occurs plays a crucial role in an employee’s entitlement to benefits. In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India held that if a serviceman develops a disability during service, one that did not exist at the time of joining, they are entitled to a disability pension.

The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, directed the Indian Army to pay disability pension with arrears to a soldier who began suffering from seizures after being posted at the Siachen Glacier.

The appellant, Bijender Singh, joined the Indian Army in 1985 and served at the Siachen Glacier from May to September 1988. He later developed a neurological condition—generalised tonic-clonic seizures—characterised by sudden loss of consciousness and uncontrollable muscle spasms. Singh was invalided out of service in 1989 due to the condition. However, the invaliding medical board assessed his disability at less than 20 per cent, effectively disqualifying him from pension benefits.

The re-survey medical board re-evaluated Singh’s condition in 1992, 1998, and 2002, and each time assessed his disability at below 20 per cent. However, it consistently noted that the condition was permanent in nature.

Singh challenged his removal from service, but his plea was rejected in 2016, and a subsequent review was dismissed in 2018. He then approached the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) seeking the disability element of the pension, but his application was again denied. Following this, he moved the Supreme Court against the AFT’s decision.

The Court’s Decision:

The Supreme Court observed that the AFT failed to examine whether the disability existed at the time of enlistment or developed later due to military service. It noted that the tribunal merely relied on the findings of the Invaliding and re-survey medical boards without conducting a deeper inquiry into when the condition actually began.

It ordered, “Thus having regard to the discussions made above, we are of the considered view that the impugned orders of the Tribunal are wholly unsustainable in law. That being the position, impugned orders dated 22.01.2018 and 26.02.2016 are hereby set aside.”

The court said that it is the employer’s responsibility to prove that the disease is not attributable to the service and that it has existed since the time of joining. Furthermore, it noted that if a person is invalided out of service, the disability is assumed to be above 20 per cent, which means a grant of 50 per cent disability pension.

The court directed payment of disability element of disability pension at 50 per cent effective from January 1, 1996, onwards, and to pay interest on arrears at a six per cent rate. The court asked to implement the order within three months from the date of judgment.