Medical Board's failure to provide reasoning for "constitutional origin" of disability entitles pensioner to disability pension.

The husband of the respondent, late Sreekantan Nair, was enrolled in the Indian Army on August 7, 1973. On July 15, 1979, he was "invalided out" of service due to a diagnosis of ‘Schizophrenia’

The Release Medical Board (RMB) assessed his disability at 60% for two years but classified it as "constitutional in origin," asserting it was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service

Consequently, his claim for disability pension was rejected by the Ministry of Defence. Following his death in 1994, his widow (the respondent) approached the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), which set aside the earlier rejections and granted the pension

The Union of India challenged this order before the High Court via a Writ Petition.

1. Whether the disability ‘Schizophrenia’ can be deemed attributable to or aggravated by military service when the medical board provides no reasoning for its "constitutional" classification

2. Whether the High Court should interfere with the AFT's order under Article 226 in light of the delay in filing the claim and the finality of medical board opinions

The court primarily applied Regulation 423(a) and (c) of the Regulations for Medical Services for Armed Forces, 1983, which mandates that a disease resulting in discharge is deemed to have arisen in service if no note was made of it at the time of enrolment

Rules 4, 5, and 14 of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982, which establish the onus of proof on the authorities to displace the presumption of service-connection

Precedential weight was given to Rajumon T.M v. Union of India (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1064), focusing on the cognitive impairment of Schizophrenia

Veer Pal Singh v. Secretary, Ministry of Defence (2013 8 SCC 83), which detailed the clinical nature of the disorder

Union of India v. Parashotam Dass (2025 5 SCC 786) was cited regarding the scope of High Court jurisdiction under Article 226

The Court reasoned that social security legislation must be interpreted liberally to favor the beneficiary

It noted that the deceased was fit at the time of recruitment, and the RMB failed to provide any specific medical reasoning or evidence to support the conclusion that the schizophrenia was "constitutional" rather than triggered by service conditions

Citing Rajumon, the court emphasized that an opinion "sans reasons" is legally invalid

Furthermore, the court excused the delay in seeking legal recourse by noting that Schizophrenia is a debilitating brain disorder that impairs a person’s ability to advance their own legal cause

The court found that the Union of India failed to discharge its heavy burden of proof to rebut the statutory presumption of attributability

It held that the High Court should not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 to overturn a beneficial order unless there is a jurisdictional error or a denial of fundamental rights, neither of which were present here. The Writ Petition was dismissed, confirming the AFT’s order for grant of disability pension