Uttarakhand HC Upholds 100% Lifelong Disability-Pension Element For Five Army Personnel, Dismisses Union’s Challenges

The Union of India challenged Armed Forces Tribunal orders allowing claims for disability element of pension in five connected matters.

The High Court considered the facts of the lead petition, concerning Ganesh Prasad Rana, who had joined the Army on deputation on 7 June 1980 and developed the disabilities at issue from 2015 onwards while serving at peace locations.

The Tribunal held that the disabilities were aggravated by Army service and directed payment of disability element at 100% for life, but limited the monetary relief to the three years preceding the filing of the Original Application on 18 September 2023.

The Union’s writ petition challenged that decision.

The High Court held that the Tribunal’s approach was consonant with the law declared by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Col. N.C. Isaac (Retd.), 2026 INSC 993

and followed the reasons in its coordinate Bench’s judgment in Union of India v. Mahipal Singh, W.P. (S/B) No. 513 of 2024, decided on 17 September 2026.

The Tribunal had relied on Dharamvir Singh in applying the benefit of doubt to the question of aggravation.

On the temporal extent of pension relief, it relied on Shiv Dass v. Union of India, 2007 (3) SLR 445, for the principle that, although pension gives rise to a continuing cause of action, relief may ordinarily be restricted to a reasonable period of about three years.

The Tribunal found the Release Medical Board’s attribution reasoning unconvincing because it relied on the fact that the disabilities arose at peace locations, while the respondent had served in the Army for over 35 years before their onset; it therefore extended the benefit of doubt and treated the disabilities as aggravated by service.

It restricted the payable period to three years before the Original Application in accordance with Shiv Dass.

The High Court did not undertake a separate, detailed assessment of the medical evidence; it found no basis to interfere, stating that the Tribunal’s view accorded with Col. N.C. Isaac and the reasoning in Mahipal Singh.

there was no order as to costs.