### Burden of Proof for Disability Pension Claims Filed Within Fifteen Years Lies Primarily on the Department

In brief

The question

1. Whether the burden of proof regarding the "attributability" of a disability lies with the Department or the claimant when the claim is made within 15 years of discharge under the 2008 Rules

The court held

The Court answered the issues in favor of the petitioner, holding that the primary onus of proof lies with the Department for claims made within 15 years and that "peace tenure" onset is not a valid ground for denial

It also directed

The High Court set aside the AFT's order and allowed the Writ Petition. The respondents were directed to issue a corrigendum PPO granting disability pension to the petitioner within three months, failing which arrears would carry 7% interest per annum

01Facts

The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on November 18, 2004, and discharged on November 30, 2021, after 17 years of service

p. 2

At discharge, the Release Medical Board (RMB) assessed his composite disability (Primary Hypertension and Obesity) at 33.5% for life but opined that these conditions were neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.

pp. 2-3

The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Kochi, upheld this rejection, ruling that under Rule 5 of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 2008, there is no presumption of attributability in favor of the petitioner.

p. 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the burden of proof regarding the "attributability" of a disability lies with the Department or the claimant when the claim is made within 15 years of discharge under the 2008 Rules

p. 3 / para. 5

ii.2. Whether the onset of a disease in a "peace tenure" or its classification as a "lifestyle disorder" is sufficient grounds to deny disability pension

pp. 7-8 / para. 11-12

03Law Applied

Rule 7 of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 2008, which states that "ordinarily" a claimant will not be called upon to prove entitlement unless the claim is made after 15 years

p. 4 / para. 6

Union of India v. Bhaskaran [2024 KHC 7223], which established that for claims within 15 years, the primary onus remains on the Department

pp. 5-6 / para. 9

Union of India v. Col. Balbir Singh [2025 SCC OnLine Del 7873] and MWO HFL Surendra Nath Singh v. UOI, affirming that military service is inherently stressful even in "peace stations" and Regulation 423(a) makes the location of onset (peace vs. field) immaterial

pp. 8-9 / para. 12

The requirement from Rajumon T.M. v. UOI that medical board opinions must be supported by detailed reasons

p. 10 / para. 13

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 Section 14

04Reasoning

The Court found that the AFT erred in placing the burden of proof on the petitioner. Under Rule 7 (2008), the word "ordinarily" implies that the Department must prove non-attributability if the claim is raised within 15 years—a condition met here as the petitioner appealed immediately after discharge

pp. 6-7 / para. 10

The Court critiqued the RMB's justification, noting it summarily dismissed the conditions as "lifestyle disorders" or occurring during "peace tenure" without acknowledging the inherent stresses of military life, such as strict discipline and constant readiness.

pp. 9 / para. 69-70

Applying a liberal interpretation of social security legislation as mandated in Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya v. Distt. Development Officer, the Court held that a medical opinion devoid of specific reasoning cannot override the legal presumption of attributability

pp. 10 / para. 14-15