Absent contrary medical evidence, statutory presumptions support disability pension for disease aggravated by military service.

The respondent, Lt. Col. Sunny Thomas, was recruited into the Army on 31 January 1970 and superannuated on 8 November 2005. His Release Medical Board assessed him as suffering from “Primary Hypertension” at 30% for life and opined that the disability was aggravated by military service due to stress and strain.

The adjudicating and appellate authorities rejected the claim for disability pension on the ground that the condition was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.

The respondent thereafter filed O.A. No. 148 of 2020 before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Kochi. By order dated 6 April 2023, the Tribunal directed the authorities to issue a corrigendum PPO granting disability element of pension at 30%, to be rounded off to 50%, from the date of retirement.

The Union of India challenged that order in the present writ petition, filed on 14 January 2024.

1. Whether the respondent was entitled to disability pension where the Release Medical Board assessed his hypertension at 30% for life and found it aggravated by military service, but the adjudicating and appellate authorities rejected that conclusion

2. Whether the High Court could entertain the Union of India’s challenge to the Armed Forces Tribunal’s order when the statutory period for appeal under Section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, had expired

The Court applied Regulation 423 of the Regulations for Medical Services for the Armed Forces, 1983, and the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982, under which a person is presumed to have been in sound physical and mental condition on entry into service if no disability or disease was recorded at that time; a disease leading to discharge is presumed to have arisen during service; and the burden of proving non-attributability rests on the employer.

The Court relied on Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 316, Sukhvinder Singh v. Union of India, (2014) 14 SCC 364, and Bijender Singh v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 895, which recognise these presumptions and require liberal resolution of reasonable doubt in favour of service personnel.

It also relied on Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1064, holding that a medical opinion without reasons cannot ordinarily sustain denial of disability pension and that service in a peace location or the characterisation of a disease as a lifestyle disorder is not, by itself, sufficient to deny attributability.

Regarding limitation, the Court applied Section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, which prescribes 90 days for a statutory appeal, along with the principles in A.V. Venkateswaran v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani, Rikhab Chand Jain v. Union of India, Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., and the cited Kerala High Court decisions, that Article 226 jurisdiction cannot generally revive a time-barred or unenforceable challenge.

The Court found that no disease or disability had been recorded when the respondent entered service. Consequently, the statutory presumptions under Regulation 423 and the applicable Entitlement Rules operated in his favour.

The Release Medical Board had expressly assessed hypertension at 30% for life and attributed its aggravation to military service due to stress and strain.

Since the authorities produced no contrary medical opinion or reasoned material establishing that the disease was neither attributable to nor aggravated by service, they were not justified in disregarding the Medical Board’s findings and the applicable presumptions.

The Court further held that the writ petition was filed substantially beyond the 90-day period prescribed for challenging the Tribunal’s order under Section 30 of the 2007 Act, and that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 could not be used to resurrect the delayed challenge.

It also held that the delayed challenge was not maintainable in the circumstances.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, thereby affirming the Armed Forces Tribunal’s direction to grant disability pension at 30%, rounded off to 50%, subject to arrears limited to three years before the filing of the Original Application and the Tribunal’s direction concerning interest for delayed payment.