Facts
The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on November 18, 2004, and discharged on November 30, 2021, after 17 years of service
Source reference: p. 2At 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.
Source reference: p. 2-3The 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.
Source reference: p. 3Issues
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
Source reference: p. 3 / para. 52. Whether the onset of a disease in a "peace tenure" or its classification as a "lifestyle disorder" is sufficient grounds to deny disability pension
Source reference: p. 7-8 / para. 11-12Law 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
Source reference: p. 4 / para. 6Union of India v. Bhaskaran [2024 KHC 7223], which established that for claims within 15 years, the primary onus remains on the Department
Source reference: p. 5-6 / para. 9Union 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
Source reference: p. 8-9 / para. 12The requirement from Rajumon T.M. v. UOI that medical board opinions must be supported by detailed reasons
Source reference: p. 10 / para. 13Reasoning
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
Source reference: p. 6-7 / para. 10The 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.
Source reference: p. 9 / para. 69-70Applying 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
Source reference: p. 10 / para. 14-15Holding
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
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
Source reference: p. 11Original Court PDF
BALAMURALI KRISHNA M( EX NO. 15497912 A SWR)vsUNION OF INDIA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in